Evaluation And Comparison Of Patient Satisfaction Tendencies And Acceptance For Different Prosthodontic Treatment Modalities
Evaluation And Comparison Of Patient Satisfaction For Different Prosthodontic TreatmentModalities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i2.1350Keywords:
Denture satisfaction, satisfaction scale, flexible esthetic clasp, extra-coronal attachment, removable partial denture (RPD)satisfactionAbstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the denture satisfaction tendencies for and between the completely
and partially edentulous patients, with different prosthodontic treatment modalities. Methodology: The study was
conducted to include twenty eight patients that were fit to the criteria of the research, asked to answer some
questions, reflect their satisfaction with the newly received dentures, which were delivered to patients according to
their conditions and needs (complete removable denture, conventional metal frame RPD, RPD with flexible esthetic
clasps and RPD with attachments). Results:The data collected from these patients was grouped and the
questionnaires values were calculated to estimate the most satisfied group, which was seen with the group who
received RPD with flexible esthetic clasps. But the significant difference analysed by Mann-Whitney Test, was focused
on the satisfaction of prostheses’ appearance, that was clearly revealed for the patients who received RPD with
resilient attachments; followed by the group who received complete dentures and RPD with esthetic flexible clasp (at
the same level), supported by the family and friends positive opinions. Also the same group that received RPD with
attachments achieved optimum level in prosthesis’ satisfaction for retention. Conclusion:The results of this research
directed the attention to the recent treatment modalities in fabrication of dentures, like using flexible esthetic clasps
and attachments; the patients that received RPD with flexible esthetic clasps appeared to be more satisfied with their
prostheses, mostly this was related to the comfortability, esthetic and retention traits, followed with group that
received RPD with attachments that showed significant differences in esthetic and retention scores than other
groups. While the complete denture wearers were the less satisfied group, related obviously to the difficulty to gain
the retention in relation to the partial once, as well as the uncomfortable feelings. [Malik M S. NJIRM 2016; 7(2):24-
30]
References
Prospective study of the quality of removable
prostheses and patients’ satisfaction in postprosthetic
phase. Int J Dent Sc. 2009; 9 (1): 5.
2. Kaplan R, Saccuzzo D (2005).Psychological Testing -
Principles, Applications, and Issues. 6th Ed.,
ThomsonWadsworth; 2005: p138-40, p475-507.
3. Davis D, Fiske J, Scott B, Radford DR. The
emotional effects of tooth loss: a preliminary
quantitative study. Br Dent J. 2000;188:503-8.
4. Hichey J, Zarb G, Bolender C. Prosthodontic
treatment for edentulous patients. 9th Ed, India.
CBS publisher. 1990; p300.
5. Prosthetic Treatment of the Edentulous Patient.
4th Ed., Blackwell Munksgaardpuplisher. Basker R,
Davenport J. 2002 P1- 37.
6. Steele JG, Treasure E, Pitts NB Morris J, Bradnock
G. Total tooth loss in the United Kingdom in 1998
And its implications for the future. Br Dent J.
2000;189:598-601.
7. Zarb G, Bolender C, Carlsson G. Boucher’s
Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients.
11th edition,Mosby. 1997; p57.
8. Kandil M. Evaluation of the Supporting Structures
for Three Modalities of Bilateral Distal Extension
Partial Dentures. Ph.D..Thesis; Faculty of Oral and
Dental Medicine/Cairo University 2012.
9. Celebic A, Knezovic – Zlataric. A comparison of
patient’s satisfaction between complete and
partial removable denture wearers. J Dent
2003;31(7): 445-51.
10. Soliman G. Bilateral Versus Unilateral Stabilization
Using Extra-coronal Attachment for Kennedy Class
II “Stress Analysis Studyâ€. 2007.
11. Deluca A.The unique thermoplastic injected
partial-Flexite. Dent Lab Summer 2007;1: 48-50.
12. Negrutiu M, Sinescu C, Sticlaru C, Davidescu A and
Romanu M.The analysis of removable partialdentures with clasp made from thermoplastic and
chemoplastic materials: A biomechanical approach
of the interface between clasp and denture. Europ
Cells and Mater. 2007;13: 20-26.
13. Qasim M. A Comparison between Flexible and
Conventional Removable Partial Denture. Thesis;
College of Dentistry,Mosul University 2009.
14. Goiato M, Santos D, Haddad M and Pesqueira A.
Effect of accelerated aging on the micro-hardness
andcolor stability of flexible resins for dentures.
Braz Dent J. 2010;24: 1-9.
15. Jenkins G. Precision Attachments: A Link to
Successful Restorative Treatment. Quintessence
Publishing Co., Inc., Chicago; 2009. P9-21, 55-73.
16. DiTolla M. Valplast Flexible esthetic partial
dentures, hair-side perspective. Clinctechn and
proced 2004;5: 1-5.
17. Shakal E. Comparative evaluation of RPI and
extra - coronal attachment designs used for
mandibular distal extension prosthesis using
clinical- radiographic and stress analysis. Egypt
Dent Assoc. 2001; 47: 3-8.
18. Rhein. Attachments and Prefabricated Castable
Components. Rhein 83 technical manual 2002-
2003.
