Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1157–1163 | Cite as

Randomized trial investigating zirconia electroplated telescopic retainers: quality of life outcomes

  • Franz Sebastian SchwindlingEmail author
  • Ulrich Karl Deisenhofer
  • Anne-Christiane Séché
  • Franziska Lehmann
  • Peter Rammelsberg
  • Thomas Stober
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The study aims to evaluate the effect of electroplated telescopic removable dental prostheses (E-RDPs) with zirconia primary crowns on oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

Materials and methods

For E-RDPs, electroplating is used to produce precisely fitting gold copings on telescopic primary crowns. These copings are bonded intra-orally to the denture framework. Fifty-six participants in need of 60 removable restorations were randomly allocated one of two materials for the primary crowns: cobalt–chromium alloy or zirconia. OHRQoL was assessed by use of the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) and by additional patient self-rating at baseline before treatment, and after 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed by use of one- and two-sample t-tests and analysis of covariance.

Results

Mean OHIP sum score at baseline was 53.4 (SD 37.4, 95 % CI 41.3–62). At follow-ups, it decreased significantly (after 6 months: mean 20, SD 26, 95 % CI 13–27.1; after 12 months: mean 16.4, SD 17.9, 95 % CI 11.6–21.2). The mean reduction in OHIP sum score after 12 months was 25 (SD 31.2, 95 % CI 13.1–36.9) for cobalt–chromium alloy and 44.4 (SD 32.3, 95 % CI 31.1–57.8) for zirconia. However, no statistically significant difference of the two materials on OHIP change or patient self-rating was detected.

Conclusions

Although OHRQoL was improved by using both cobalt–chromium alloy and zirconia primary crowns for E-RDPs, post-treatment differences between the groups were not statistically significant.

Clinical relevance

Zirconia E-RDPs enhance OHRQoL. However, zirconia primary crowns do not outperform cobalt–chromium alloy crowns regarding patient satisfaction—despite their tooth-like color.

Keywords

OHRQoL Patient satisfaction Removable dental prostheses Electroplating Zirconia Cobalt–chromium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the dental laboratory Hans Plewe GmbH (Neckargemünd, Germany) for performing parts of the laboratory work. We are, furthermore, grateful to Johannes Krisam, for help with statistical analysis, and Ian Davies, for proofreading the manuscript. Parts of the manuscript were prepared during the Summer Institute 2014 at the School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle. We would like to thank Dr. Timothy DeRouen and Dr. Karl Kaiyala for patiently sharing their expertise in clinical research and data analysis. Sebastian Schwindling was supported by the Physician Scientist-Programme of the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was financially supported by a grant from Nobel Biocare Services AG (grant no 2005–362).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local institutional review board (file S-451/2005) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R (2007) What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):20–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01435.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Isaacson GO (1969) Telescope crown retainers for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 22:436–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwindling FS, Dittmann B, Rammelsberg P (2014) Double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses: a retrospective study of survival and complications. J Prosthet Dent 112:488–493. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.02.017
  4. 4.
    Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M, Weber A, Ferger P, Rehmann P (2007) Long-term analysis of telescopic crown retained removable partial dentures: survival and need for maintenance. J Dent 35:939–945. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gurbulak AG, Kilic K, Eroglu Z, Gercekcioglu E, Kesim B (2013) Evaluation of the retention force of double conical crowns used in combination with a galvanoforming and casting fabrication technique. J Prosthodont 22:63–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00897.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10:85–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weigl P, Hahn L, Lauer HC (2000) Advanced biomaterials used for a new telescopic retainer for removable dentures. J Biomed Mater Res 53:320–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greven B, Luepke M, von Dorsche SH (2007) Telescoping implant prostheses with intraoral luted galvano mesostructures to improve passive fit. J Prosthet Dent 98:239–244. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60062-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stober T, Bermejo JL, Beck-Mussoter J, Seche AC, Lehmann F, Koob J, Rammelsberg P (2012) Clinical performance of conical and electroplated telescopic double crown-retained partial dentures: a randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 25:209–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zafiropoulos GG, Rebbe J, Thielen U, Deli G, Beaumont C, Hoffmann O (2010) Zirconia removable telescopic dentures retained on teeth or implants for maxilla rehabilitation. Three-year observation of three cases. J Oral Implantol 36:455–465. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00065 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engels J, Schubert O, Güth JF, Hoffmann M, Jauernig C, Erdelt K, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F (2013) Wear behavior of different double-crown systems. Clin Oral Investig 17:503–510. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0746-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD (2002) The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile—translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci 110:425–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    John MT, Reissmann DR, Szentpetery A, Steele J (2009) An approach to define clinical significance in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 18:455–460. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00457.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Naumann M (2010) Parameters affecting retentive force of electroformed double-crown systems. Clin Oral Investig 14:129–135. doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0271-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manicone PF, Rossi Iommetti P, Raffaelli L, Paolantonio M, Rossi G, Berardi D, Perfetti G (2007) Biological considerations on the use of zirconia for dental devices. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 20:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bremer F, Grade S, Kohorst P, Stiesch M (2011) In vivo biofilm formation on different dental ceramics. Quintessence Int 42:565–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Minagi S, Natsuaki N, Nishigawa G, Sato T (1999) New telescopic crown design for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 81:684–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bayer S, Zuziak W, Kraus D, Keilig L, Stark H, Enkling N (2011) Conical crowns with electroplated gold copings: retention force changes caused by wear and combined off-axial load. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:323–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02003.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayer S, Kraus D, Keilig L, Gölz L, Stark H, Enkling N (2012) Changes in retention force with electroplated copings on conical crowns: a comparison of gold and zirconia primary crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27:577–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turp I, Bozdag E, Sunbuloglu E, Kahruman C, Yusufoglu I, Bayraktar G (2014) Retention and surface changes of zirconia primary crowns with secondary crowns of different materials. Clin Oral Investig. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1183-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozyemisci-Cebeci N, Yavuzyilmaz H (2013) Comparison of the effects of friction varnish and electroforming on the retention of telescopic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 109:392–396. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60325-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montero J, Castillo-Oyague R, Lynch CD, Albaladejo A, Castano A (2013) Self-perceived changes in oral health-related quality of life after receiving different types of conventional prosthetic treatments: a cohort follow-up study. J Dent 41:493–503. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolfart S, Moll D, Hilgers RD, Wolfart M, Kern M (2013) Implant placement under existing removable dental prostheses and its effect on oral health-related quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:1354–1359. doi: 10.1111/clr.12030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKenna G, Allen PF, Woods N, O’Mahony D, DaMata C, Cronin M, Normand C (2013) A preliminary report of the cost-effectiveness of tooth replacement strategies for partially dentate elders. Gerodontology 30:207–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2012.00665.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hebling E, Pereira AC (2007) Oral health-related quality of life: a critical appraisal of assessment tools used in elderly people. Gerodontology 24:151–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2007.00178.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hassel AJ, Rolko C, Grossmann AC, Ohlmann B, Rammelsberg P (2007) Correlations between self-ratings of denture function and oral health-related quality of life in different age groups. Int J Prosthodont 20:242–244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steele JG, Sanders AE, Slade GD, Allen PF, Lahti S, Nuttall N, Spencer AJ (2004) How do age and tooth loss affect oral health impacts and quality of life? A study comparing two national samples. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 32:107–114. doi: 10.1111/j.0301-5661.2004.00131.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Astrom AN, Haugejorden O, Skaret E, Trovik TA, Klock KS (2006) Oral Impacts on Daily Performance in Norwegian adults: the influence of age, number of missing teeth, and socio-demographic factors. Eur J Oral Sci 114:115–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2006.00336.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swelem AA, Gurevich KG, Fabrikant EG, Hassan MH, Aqou S (2014) Oral health-related quality of life in partially edentulous patients treated with removable, fixed, fixed-removable, and implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 27:338–347. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3692 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grossmann AC, Hassel AJ, Schilling O, Lehmann F, Koob A, Rammelsberg P (2007) Treatment with double crown-retained removable partial dentures and oral health-related quality of life in middle- and high-aged patients. Int J Prosthodont 20:576–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Inukai M, Baba K, John MT, Igarashi Y (2008) Does removable partial denture quality affect individuals’ oral health? J Dent Res 87:736–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rinke S, Buergers R, Ziebolz D, Roediger M (2015) Clinical outcome of double crown-retained implant overdentures with zirconia primary crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 7:329–337. doi: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.329 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz Sebastian Schwindling
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ulrich Karl Deisenhofer
    • 1
  • Anne-Christiane Séché
    • 2
  • Franziska Lehmann
    • 3
  • Peter Rammelsberg
    • 1
  • Thomas Stober
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ProsthodonticsHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Private practiceDüsseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Private practiceLandshutGermany

Personalised recommendations