Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial

Stober, Thomas; Séché, Anne-Christiane; Lehmann, Franziska; Rammelsberg, Peter; Bömicke, Wolfgang

doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1335-x

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of different variables on the survival of teeth in DCRDs have mostly been examined in relation to solely tooth‐retained dentures. Although many studies have emphasised the negative effect of non‐vital teeth on abutment survival, the present study could not confirm these findings (Dittmann & Rammelsberg, ; Rehmann et al, ; Stober et al, ; Szentpetery et al, ). Whereas the logrank test showed a significant difference between vital and non‐vital teeth, multiple Cox regression showed no statistically significant p ‐value.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…The effects of different variables on the survival of teeth in DCRDs have mostly been examined in relation to solely tooth-retained dentures. Although many studies have emphasised the negative effect of non-vital teeth on abutment survival, the present study could not confirm these findings (Dittmann & Rammelsberg, 2008;Rehmann et al, 2007;Stober et al, 2015;Szentpetery et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…Follow‐up studies on DCRDs supported exclusively by teeth have reported abutment survival of 80.6%–98.8% after five to ten years of observation (Dittmann & Rammelsberg, ; Schwindling et al, ; Stober et al, ; Szentpetery, Lautenschlager, & Setz, ). Only a few studies evaluating combined tooth–implant‐retained dentures have described tooth loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The up‐to‐11‐year survival and success of implants and abutment teeth under solely implant‐supported and combined tooth–implant‐supported double crown‐retained removable dentures

Fobbe

Rammelsberg

Bermejo

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This retrospective analysis was designed to compare the survival and success of dental implants in solely implant‐supported, double crown‐retained removable dentures (DCRDs) and combined tooth–implant‐supported DCRDs, due to a lack of data on the latter. Material and methods From 2002, patients were consecutively admitted for treatment at the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg. Surgical and prosthodontic treatment and scheduled and unscheduled visits were recorded on standardized documentation forms. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate success (survival without major complications). Cox regression was applied to assess risk factors. Results From this clinical study, 139 DCRDs on 412 implants and 239 teeth met the inclusion criteria. Fifty‐three dentures were implant‐supported (213 implants). Eighty‐six were supported by teeth and implants. The DCRDs were placed in 126 patients. After an observation period of up to 11.2 years (median: 4.2 years), total implant survival was 99.5% for tooth–implant‐supported DCRDs and 93.4% for implant‐supported ones. The estimated cumulative success was 97.2% (standard error/SE ± 1.2%) and 85.9% (SE ± 2.4%) at five years, respectively. Complications included implant or tooth loss, peri‐implantitis, apical periodontitis and tooth fracture. In terms of abutments, results from multiple Cox regression revealed lower failure rates in tooth–implant‐supported dentures (p = .04). No other risk factors were identified. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, survival and success are high for both treatment options. Combining teeth and implants in one DCRD might have a positive effect on the prognosis of the implant and the survival of remaining teeth.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The up‐to‐11‐year survival and success of implants and abutment teeth under solely implant‐supported and combined tooth–implant‐supported double crown‐retained removable dentures

Fobbe

Rammelsberg

Bermejo

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High initial retentive forces may cause debonding or decementation of a primary telescopic crown. This complication was amongst the most frequently reported technical complications in two further clinical studies [20,21] observing different types of telescopic crowns. In some cases, the loss of retention was so high that alloy particles had to be welded into the inner surface of the secondary crown.…”

Section: Influence Of Materials Combinationsmentioning

confidence: 81%

In Vitro Analysis of the Tribological Behaviour of Different Material Combinations for Telescopic Crowns

Linek

Richter

Raedel

et al. 2016

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Telescopic crowns are used to connect removable dental prostheses with the remaining dentition. Several material combinations are used for manufacturing primary and secondary crowns. The present experimental study analysed the influence of different material combinations on the long-term development of surface roughness and pull-off forces. Six different material combinations were tested. Secondary crowns were manufactured either by casting or electroforming. Each material combination was tested with n = 10 specimens. A material testing device with integrated power sensors was used for 10,000 cycles per test. Signs of wear were identified by surface roughness measurements, and visualized by a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) technologies. Statistical significances were tested by using the U-Test with Bonferroni correction. The choice of materials and the manufacturing process were found to influence the long-term development of pull-off forces as well as wear-associated surface roughness. Combinations of different groups of materials for primary and secondary crowns showed favourable results. Worse results were found for the combination pure titanium and pure titanium and the combination high gold alloy and electroformed gold. Wear-associated surface roughness was higher for combinations of similar or identical groups of materials. For manufacturing telescopic crowns, combinations of different groups of materials are preferred. For secondary crown manufacturing, electroforming is superior to casting.

show abstract

“…Metal-based double crowns have conventionally been hand-fabricated by skilled dental technicians using the lost wax technique [11], but the efficiency of fabrication has been improved by the application of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) [12]. Danielczak et al reported a method of double crown fabrication in which the primary (inner) and secondary (outer) crowns were designed using a computer and milled from cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy disks by computer numerical control (CNC) [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retentive force of telescopic crowns combining fiber-reinforced composite and zirconia

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study investigated changes in the retentive force of telescopic crowns fabricated by combining a zirconia primary crown and a fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) secondary crown. Methods: Primary zirconia crowns were produced with a nominal convergence angle of 0°. Forty-eight secondary crowns were milled from FRC and divided into three study groups (n=16/group) based on milling parameters and post-milling adjustment. The offset parameter used for the final milling step of the inner crown surface was adjusted for a tight initial fit in Group 1 (milling offset: +10 µm, i.e., 2 × 10 µm = 20 µm lower inner diameter compared with the CAD file of the crown) and for improved initial fit (milling offset: -10 µm, i.e., an enlargement of the inner crown diameter by 2 × 20 µm = 40 µm in relation to Group 1) in Groups 2 and 3. The inner surfaces of the secondary crowns were polished with diamond paste in Groups 1 and 2, and silicon points were used for Group 3. The retentive force was measured using a universal testing device. The secondary crown was placed on the primary crown, with the final fitting force set to a load of 100 N. This test was conducted before and after aging (10,000 insertion/removal cycles) under dry and wet conditions. A generalized linear model was used to estimate the differences in the retentive force to elucidate the effects of the milling parameters and polishing methods. Results: We realized an initial retentive force of approximately 10 N. In Groups 2 and 3, the difference was statistically significant between the dry and wet conditions before aging (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the dry and wet conditions after aging in any of the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: An adequate initial retentive force can be achieved with telescopic crowns combining zirconia and FRC.

show abstract

Electroplated and cast double crown-retained removable dental prostheses: 6-year results from a randomized clinical trial

Abstract: Survival of teeth supporting double crown-retained RDP is affected by their vitality. Clinical performance was acceptable for both RDP supported by electroplated or cast double crowns.

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

The up‐to‐11‐year survival and success of implants and abutment teeth under solely implant‐supported and combined tooth–implant‐supported double crown‐retained removable dentures

The up‐to‐11‐year survival and success of implants and abutment teeth under solely implant‐supported and combined tooth–implant‐supported double crown‐retained removable dentures

In Vitro Analysis of the Tribological Behaviour of Different Material Combinations for Telescopic Crowns

Retentive force of telescopic crowns combining fiber-reinforced composite and zirconia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About