Authors : Dr. Vikas Punia; Dr. Deshmukh Renuka; Dr. Anand Porwal; Dr. Palak Salgia; Dr. Abhijit Sethia

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/ydcx4swj

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/89d6nmbk

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1016

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Background: Full mouth rehabilitation (FMR) is a complex treatment modality aimed at restoring esthetics, function, and occlusal stability in patients with severely worn dentition. Among the various philosophies, the Pankey-Mann-Schuyler (PMS) and the Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy are the most widely recognized. While both have been used extensively, their comparative outcomes remain unclear.  Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from January 1960 to October 2018. A total of 5 clinical studies (3 RCTs, 2 CCTs) comprising 169 patients were included. Data on esthetic outcomes (Pink Esthetic Score [PES], White Esthetic Score [WES]) and functional outcomes (occlusal harmony, masticatory efficiency, phonetic comfort assessed via VAS) were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for CCTs. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  Results: Esthetics: Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy demonstrated significantly higher PES (Mean Difference ≈ +1.3 to +1.4; p < 0.01) and WES (Mean Difference ≈ +1.2 to +1.6; p < 0.01) compared to PMS across all studies. Function: No statistically significant difference was observed in functional outcomes (VAS mean difference ≈ +0.2 to +0.4; CIs crossed 0).Funnel plot analysis showed low risk of publication bias.  Conclusion: Within the limitations of the available evidence, the Hobo Twin-Stage philosophy provides superior esthetic outcomes compared to the PMS philosophy, while both approaches yield comparable functional results. Choice of philosophy should be tailored to patient expectations, clinical expertise, and available resources.

Keywords : Full Mouth Rehabilitation, Hobo Twin-Stage Philosophy, Pankey-Mann-Schuyler Philosophy, Esthetics, Occlusion, Meta-Analysis.

References :

1. Rajendran R, Sivapathasundharam B. Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology. 7th ed. New Delhi, India: Elsevier; 2012.
2. Prakash P, Singh K. Impact of complete mouth rehabilitation following Pankey Mann Schuyler versus HOBO philosophy on oral health‑related quality of life using oral health impact profile‑14: A randomized clinical trial. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2022;22(1):343-53.
3. Kondumahanti V, Ritika S, Anju L, Venkat R, Chiranjeevi R, Jayakar S. PANKEY-MANN-SCHUYLER philosophy- critical analysis. ISSN 2019; 8(5):1249-1253.
4.  V AK, Shetty RM, Nandini Y, Gopalakrishna S. Systematic application of HOBO twin-stage approach to rehabilitate worn dentition: A Case Report. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025; 26 (2):200-205.
5. Meenakshi T, Srinivas A, Rajasekharan S. Philosophies of full mouth rehabilitation: A systematic review of clinical studies. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021;21(1):52–58.
6. Dadarwal A, Sharma V, Sareen K, et al. Reclaiming the Smile: Full Mouth Rehabilitation of a Generalized Attrition Patient Using the Hobo Twin-Stage Technique. IJPRD. 2023;13(2):78–83.
7. Sharma R, Patel N, Kaur G. Comparative analysis of patient satisfaction in full mouth rehabilitation using two occlusal schemes. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(7):1–4.
8. Rajendran R, Sivapathasundharam B. Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology. 7th ed. New Delhi, India: Elsevier; 2012.
9.  Turner KA, Missirlian DM. Restoration of the extremely worn dentition. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52:467‑74.
10. Mann AW, Pankey LD. Oral rehabilitation. Part I: Use of the PM‑instrument in treatment planning and in restoring the lower posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1960; 10:135‑50.
11. Pankey LD, Mann AW. Oral rehabilitation. Part II: Reconstruction of upper teeth using a functionally generated path technique. J Prosthet Dent 1960; 10:151‑62.
12. Ross CL, Orenstein M, Botchwey N. Health Impact Assessment in the United States. 2014: Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2014.
13. Hesse BW, Gaysynsky A, Ottenbacher A, Moser RP, Blake KD, Chou WY, et al. Meeting the healthy people 2020 goals: Using the Health Information National Trends Survey to monitor progress on health communication objectives. J Health Commun 2014; 19:1497‑509.
14.  Pramod Kumar AV, Vinni TK, Mahesh MR. Full mouth rehabilitation with maxillary tooth supported and mandibular tooth and implant supported combination prostheses: A 4‑year case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012; 12:113‑9.
15. Soares GH, Santiago PH, Werneck RI, Michel‑Crosato E, Jamieson L. A psychometric network analysis of OHIP‑14 across Australian and Brazilian populations. JDR Clin Translat Res 2021; 6:333‑42.
16. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994; 11:3‑11. Slade GD.
17. Johansson A, Omar R, Carlsson GE. Bruxism and prosthetic treatment: A critical review. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55(3):127–136. 
18. Ariaans K, Heussen N, Schiffer H, et al. Use of molecular indicators of infl ammation to assess the biocompatibility of all-ceramic restorations. J Clin Periodontol 2016;43(2):173–179.
19. Saravanakumar P, Veeravalli PT, Kumar VA, et al. Effect of different crown materials on the interleukin-1β content of gingival crevicular fluid in endodontically treated molars: Original research. Cureus 2017;16;9(6): e1361.
20. Papadiochou S, Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(4):545–551.
21. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117: e1-e105