Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research · 2025
Assessment of the success and survival of full mouth rehabilitations: a 3 year follow up study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sinha Divyansh, Venugopalan Suresh, Anand Vijay
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Full mouth rehabilitation (FMR) addresses complex dental issues like tooth wear, cosmetic concerns, and loss of occlusal stability, enhancing both function and aesthetics. This study aimed to evaluate the success and survival of tooth-supported FMR treatments and identify common causes of treatment failure.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis of 60 patients who underwent FMR between 2019 and 2021 was conducted. Data were collected from the Dental Information Archiving Software (DIAS) and analyzed using modified USPHS criteria, covering parameters like postoperative sensitivity, anatomical form, and marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture and recurrent caries. Additional aesthetic and functional discrepancies were also documented.
RESULTS: At cementation, all parameters scored 100 % alpha. At 3-year follow-up, slight declines were observed in sensitivity (99.17 % alpha), anatomic form (99.17 % alpha), marginal discoloration (98.88 % alpha), and recurrent caries (99.17 % alpha), with no statistical significance. Marginal adaptation (97.22 % alpha, p = 0.004) and surface texture (97.5 % alpha, p = 0.006) showed significant differences. Aesthetic issues included midline disparities (34 %) and ceramic chipping (30 %), while functional issues included absence of incisal guidance (23 %) and occlusal plane discrepancies (16 %).
DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that successful FMR relies on a multidisciplinary approach and advanced CAD/CAM technology, which enhances accuracy and reduces treatment time. However, common aesthetic issues, such as gingival zenith variations, highlight areas for further improvement.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis of 60 patients who underwent FMR between 2019 and 2021 was conducted. Data were collected from the Dental Information Archiving Software (DIAS) and analyzed using modified USPHS criteria, covering parameters like postoperative sensitivity, anatomical form, and marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture and recurrent caries. Additional aesthetic and functional discrepancies were also documented.
RESULTS: At cementation, all parameters scored 100 % alpha. At 3-year follow-up, slight declines were observed in sensitivity (99.17 % alpha), anatomic form (99.17 % alpha), marginal discoloration (98.88 % alpha), and recurrent caries (99.17 % alpha), with no statistical significance. Marginal adaptation (97.22 % alpha, p = 0.004) and surface texture (97.5 % alpha, p = 0.006) showed significant differences. Aesthetic issues included midline disparities (34 %) and ceramic chipping (30 %), while functional issues included absence of incisal guidance (23 %) and occlusal plane discrepancies (16 %).
DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that successful FMR relies on a multidisciplinary approach and advanced CAD/CAM technology, which enhances accuracy and reduces treatment time. However, common aesthetic issues, such as gingival zenith variations, highlight areas for further improvement.