A comparison of prosthetic options in hypodontia
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A comparison of aesthetics and patient-satisfaction between three methods of replacing teeth in patients with congenitally missing teeth (hypodontia)
IRAS ID
237912
Contact name
Shakheel Shahdad
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Joint Research Management Office
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 5 months, 0 days
Research summary
Hypodontia is the congenital absence of one to five permanent teeth (excluding third molars) as a result of agenesis (Nunn et al, 2003). It’s overall prevalence is 6.4% (Khalaf, 2014).\n\nTreatment options include closing the spaces orthodontically or providing prosthesis to fill the space, such as resin-retained bridges (RRBs) and dental implants. Research has been carried out in this area but there are no specific publications comparing the treatments for hypodontia in terms of patient-related outcomes and aesthetics.\n\nThe aim of this study is to compare three treatment modalities for replacing missing teeth in patients with hypodontia: nickel chromium (NiCr) resin-retained bridges (RRBs), zirconia RRBs and dental implants. They will be compared in three domains:\n-\tClinician-rated aesthetics\n-\tPatient-rated aesthetics\n-\tPatient overall satisfaction\nThis will be undertaken in the restorative department in the Royal London Dental Hospital. \n\nInclusion criteria are that participants must suffer from the congenital absence of one to five permanent teeth (excluding third molars) and must have had treatment for this at the Royal London Dental Hospital. Treatment must have included one of the prosthetic options listed above.\n\nInternal records of hypodontia patients are held in the department. Consecutive patient clinical records will be searched (starting from most recent) until 45 prosthetic units from each group (1. missing teeth replaced with NiCr RBBs, 2. Zirconia RBBs and 3. implants, respectively), who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria, are identified. Some participants will have had multiple prosthetic units placed and each individual unit will count separately to the totals.\n\nA sample of patients from each treatment category will be contacted and invited to attend the dental hospital. A clinical examination will be carried out to confirm prosthesis is still in situ and clinical photographs will be taken. A restorative consultant, periodontics consultant, prosthodontics consultant and dental student will rate the aesthetics from the photographs using an objective scale. The patient will be asked to complete a written satisfaction questionnaire.
REC name
London - Brent Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
18/LO/0830
Date of REC Opinion
26 Jun 2018
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion