R P Frank1, J S Brudvik, B Leroux, P Milgrom, N Hawkins. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, 98195-7452, USA. hiker2@u.washington.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Little is known about the importance of published fabrication standards in determining the outcome of treatment with mandibular distal extension removable partial dentures in patients of community practices. PURPOSE: This study describes mandibular partial dentures worn by patients from King County, Wash., and examines the validity of standards of design and fabrication by relating the standards to measures of clinical acceptability and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two people treated in private dental practices who responded to a mail survey about satisfaction with a partial denture were examined. Eight standards of fabrication, overall clinical acceptability of the prosthesis, and tissue health were evaluated clinically. Patient satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. Associations between variables were assessed by contingency tables and odds ratios. RESULTS: Half the prostheses met 4 or fewer of the 8 standards, and these were responsible for nearly all the displacement of tissue by the framework. Forty-three percent of the dentures (35/82) were rated clinically acceptable. Of the remaining dentures, 38 could be made acceptable by modifications. The remaining 9 dentures needed replacement. Sixty-three percent of the patients examined were satisfied with the dentures. There was a relationship between tissue health and the fabrication standards related to rest form, base extension, stress distribution, and framework fit. This study found no relation between tissue health and other design or fabrication features. None of the standards were found to be related to patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This study found partial support for the validity of design/fabrication standards for removable partial dentures. The most important standards are rest form, base extension, and stress distribution. The standards appear to be unrelated to patient satisfaction.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Little is known about the importance of published fabrication standards in determining the outcome of treatment with mandibular distal extension removable partial dentures in patients of community practices. PURPOSE: This study describes mandibular partial dentures worn by patients from King County, Wash., and examines the validity of standards of design and fabrication by relating the standards to measures of clinical acceptability and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-two people treated in private dental practices who responded to a mail survey about satisfaction with a partial denture were examined. Eight standards of fabrication, overall clinical acceptability of the prosthesis, and tissue health were evaluated clinically. Patient satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. Associations between variables were assessed by contingency tables and odds ratios. RESULTS: Half the prostheses met 4 or fewer of the 8 standards, and these were responsible for nearly all the displacement of tissue by the framework. Forty-three percent of the dentures (35/82) were rated clinically acceptable. Of the remaining dentures, 38 could be made acceptable by modifications. The remaining 9 dentures needed replacement. Sixty-three percent of the patients examined were satisfied with the dentures. There was a relationship between tissue health and the fabrication standards related to rest form, base extension, stress distribution, and framework fit. This study found no relation between tissue health and other design or fabrication features. None of the standards were found to be related to patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This study found partial support for the validity of design/fabrication standards for removable partial dentures. The most important standards are rest form, base extension, and stress distribution. The standards appear to be unrelated to patient satisfaction.
Authors: K Jomjunyong; P Rungsiyakull; C Rungsiyakull; W Aunmeungtong; M Chantaramungkorn; P Khongkhunthian Journal: Oral Implantol (Rome) Date: 2017-01-21