The Käyser/Nijmegen group then conducted

cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies, and reported that the oral function, Angiogenesis inhibitor occlusal stability and periodontal support of SDA patients were well maintained, and there was no marked effect of lacking molar support on signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) [19]. The SDA concept in which missing molars are not restored is widely accepted among dentists in European countries [20], [21] and [22]. Although some researchers have reviewed literature with respect to validation of the SDA concept proposed by Käyser [19] and [23], it has not been reviewed systematically whether prosthetic restorations improve oral function of SDA patients. The aim of this article was to systematically review literature regarding the effect of prosthetic restoration in SDA patients. The specific research questions evaluated

are (1) whether treatment with RPDs for distal extension edentulous space improves oral function, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) compared to treatment with CFPDs (premolar occlusion) or no restoration and (2) what are the advantages/disadvantages of treatment with RPDs over IFPDs, CFPDs or no restoration for SDA. An electronic database (Medline) was accessed using PubMed to search for PAK6 all relevant articles published between 1966 and March 2011. Key elements for the search strategy SCH727965 datasheet were shortened dental arch or SDA. Articles retrieved were limited to human research published in English dental journals. The articles returned by the databases were then filtered for specific inclusion

criteria: (1) articles in which patients had unilateral or bilateral distal extension edentulous space(s) in the posterior region (Kennedy Class I or Class II condition) of maxilla and/or mandible; (2) articles in which the distal extension edentulous space(s) were restored with RPDs, IFPDs or CFPDs; and (3) articles in which statistical comparisons of outcome measures were made within subjects before and after prosthetic treatments, between patients with RPDs, CFPDs, IFPDs or no restoration. Review articles without meta-analysis were excluded. In addition to the database search, relevant articles meeting the inclusion criteria were acquired from references of the retrieved articles by a manual search. Characteristics of studies such as the authors, publication year, dentition, number of patients, follow-up period, outcome measures and results were extracted from original articles.