STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. RESULTS: Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. RESULTS: Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care.