Abstract
Removable partial denture (RPD) designs may differ based on types of materials used. The aim of the study was to investigate how a sample of non-metal clasp (NMC), acrylic and metal RPD designs complied with biomechanical design principles. This cross-sectional study examined 60 clinical designs of NMC, acrylic and metal RPDs at 3 commercial dental laboratories in the Cape Town Metropole, at the stage when the dentures were ready for transport to dentists. Retention, indirect retention, support, soft tissue cover, and cross-arch design features were recorded and compared with “ideal” control designs developed by 2 experts in the specialty of prosthodontics. Fifty five % of the clinical designs had no rests, hence were mucosa supported. None of the NMC and only 35% of acrylic RPDs had some rests. A total of 35 clinical designs required indirect retention, but it was only provided in 14 (40%) of them. Eighty five % of acrylic RPDs had no clasps; metal RPDs had more clasps than required while NMC RPDs had slightly less clasps than required. Ratio teeth covered/replaced was most favourable for metal (0.91), followed by acrylic (1.83) and NMC (1.80) RPDs. Cross – arch stabilization was absent in 22% of clinical designs, all of them from the NMC group. Of the 3 types of RPDs, metal RPDs complied best with requirements in terms of tissue support (mostly tooth and mixed tooth/mucosa), retention, cross-arch stabilization and “open” design. Acrylic RPDs provided crossarch stabilization but were lacking in all other aspects. Except for direct retention, NMC RPDs did not conform to any of the agreed biomechanical requirements for RPDs assessed in this study.
Highlights
Removable partial denture (RPD) designs may differ based on types of materials used
Of the 3 types of RPDs, metal RPDs complied best with requirements in terms of tissue support, retention, cross-arch stabilization and “open” design
Except for direct retention, non-metal clasp (NMC) RPDs did not conform to any of the agreed biomechanical requirements for RPDs assessed in this study
Summary
Removable partial denture (RPD) designs may differ based on types of materials used. One of the options for tooth replacement in partially edentulous patients is RPDs. Removable partial dentures have to comply with biomechanical aspects of support, retention and stability as well as limit damage to intraoral hard and soft tissues.[2,3,4,5]. Warren Farao: BChD, PDD, MChD, Senior Lecturer, Specialist: The Academy of Prosthodontics publishes and regularly updates its principles, concepts, and practices in prosthodontics, including those for RPDs based on feedback from members and working committees of several Academies.[6] there appear to be variations in how these principles and concepts are applied.[7] In addition, there is little evidence that adhering to these principles leads to improved treatment outcomes or patient satisfaction.[8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
