Is the shortened dental arch still a satisfactory option

Aims Dental practitioners may hold the view that missing posterior teeth should be replaced to ensure a healthy masticatory system and satisfactory oral function. However, the shortened dental arch (SDA) concept is still in use, but after 35 years is it acceptable? This review searches the literature for the evidence and opinions regarding the suitability of the SDA as a current treatment modality. Methods Medline and PubMed databases were searched for relevant terms, all the abstracts were assessed and articles selected according to the pre-set exclusion and inclusion criteria. Results The search yielded 1,895 articles and after the assessment of the abstracts and application of the exclusion and inclusion criteria, 44 articles were selected for this review. These included 11 cohort studies, two longitudinal studies, two animal studies, three cross sectional studies, eight clinical studies and 18 case control studies. There appears to be a trend over the past three decades for more papers to be opposed to the SDA concept. Conclusion Evidence that the SDA causes pathology is lacking. Clinicians, healthcare authorities and patients have shown favourable attitudes towards the SDA and this continues, although there is an increase in studies opposing the concept and some are dissatisfied with this option. The concept remains viable particularly for the medically compromised patient or where restorations are considered unsuitable but further more specific studies are warranted.