PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Denture, Partial”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Periodontal status of teeth in contact with denture in removable partial denture wearers.

The aims of the study were to determine the periodontal status of the teeth in contact with removable partial dentures (RPDs) and to compare them with other teeth in the opposing arch not related to any prosthesis. The periodontal status was also assessed in relation to the age of the dentures. Four hundred and twenty-seven patients treated with RPDs from 1981 to 1986 were recalled for examination. Prior to prosthetic treatment they were given periodontal treatment and fillings when required. Initially all were given oral hygiene instructions and motivation. They were reviewed regularly only on a short-term basis. Eighteen patients were suitable for the present study comprising of eight males and 10 females whose mean age was 41 years. The RPDs were in use from 1.5 to 8 years (mean 4.6 years). The following parameters were assessed: Plaque index (P1I), Gingival index (GI), loss of attachment (LA) and tooth mobility. The wearing of RPDs resulted in higher P1I, GI and LA compared to the controls and these differences were statistically significant. There was an increased frequency of higher P1I, GI and LA with the increase in denture age. Minor changes in tooth mobility were observed. It was concluded that the wearing of RPDs was detrimental to periodontal health in patients whose oral hygiene was less than adequate.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Veterans Administration Cooperative Dental Implant Study--comparisons between fixed partial dentures supported by blade-vent implants and removable partial dentures. Part II: Comparisons of success rates and periodontal health between two treatment modalities.

Five Veterans Administration centers have participated in a study to determine whether fixed partial dentures (FPDs) supported by blade implants offer an acceptable substitute for mandibular unilateral or bilateral distal-base extension removable partial dentures (RPDs). The study design and methodology have been described in Part I. A total of 232 patients received comprehensive dental care including RPDs for 118 patients and FPDs for 114. Prespecified criteria determined treatment failures. During the 60-month period, treatment failures occurred in 19 FPD patients and 30 RPD patients. Ten FPD failures occurred before and nine after the FPD insertion. Five RPD failures were caused by abutment tooth loss and 25 for not using the RPD while eating. Life table analysis showed 5-year success rates of 84.2% for the FPD and 74% for the RPD. The 17.9% higher FPD success rate in Kennedy class II patients was both statistically and clinically significant. Excluding the 10 early failures, the 5-year FPD success rate was 91.5%. Of the 170 attempted implants, 26 failed, including 12 before the FPD fabrication. Radiographic assessments by a panel of three judges showed no bone deterioration during baseline to 60 months in 29.6%, slight in 25.4%, moderate in 15.9%, marked in 27%, and severe deterioration in 2.1% of the implant posts.

Blade Implantation↗
PubMed2002

A clinical overview of removable prostheses: 3. Principles of design for removable partial dentures.

Removable partial dentures (RPDs) should not be made for patients unless they are necessary. Most partial dentures have the potential to cause some damage to the teeth and supporting tissues, however well they are designed and constructed; the criteria for selecting such devices were described in a previous article. In general there is merit in, wherever possible, reducing tissue coverage as much as possible when RPDs are being planned. This article, the third in a series on the prescription of RPDs, discusses the design principles involved.

Dental Abutments↗
PubMed1991

Veterans Administration Cooperative Dental Implant Study--comparisons between fixed partial dentures supported by blade-vent implants and removable partial dentures. Part III: Comparisons of masticatory scores between two treatment modalities.

Five Veterans Administration Medical Centers participated in a study to determine the comparative influence of fixed partial dentures (FDPs) supported by endosteal blade implants and removable partial dentures (RPDs) on masticatory performance. The study design, methodology, and success rates have been described in Parts I and II. A total of 232 patients received comprehensive dental care, including RPDs for 118 patients and FPDs for 114. Three standardized masticatory tests were made with peanuts and carrots before treatment. These tests were repeated at 16 weeks following RPD or implant insertion and thereafter at 6, 18, 36, and 60 months. At entry, there were no significant differences in performance scores and chewing time and strokes taken to reach the swallowing threshold between the RPD and FPD groups (p greater than 0.05). After treatment completion, FPDs and RPDs significantly improved the masticatory ability of patients with Kennedy class I or class II edentulous conditions (p less than 0.001). The improvements in performance scores for both test foods were slightly better in the RPD group than in the FPD group, although none of the 30 mean differences was significant (p greater than 0.05). After the baseline period to 60 months, only slight changes in performance scores were observed for both groups. RPDs and FPDs were comparable in improving the chewing efficiency of patients with Kennedy class I and class II partially edentulous conditions.

Adult↗
PubMed1977

Subjective reactions to major connector designs for removable partial dentures.

Simlated partial denture frameworks were fabricated for 12 dentists (subjects) who had intact dentitions and who had intact dentitions and who had had no previous experience in wearing partial dentures. The outline of the major connectors was modified during a 1 week interval. The data obtained from questionnaires brought about the following conclusions: 1. Preferences in maxillary major connector design were as follows: (1) broad posterior strap, (2) anteroposterior bar, (3) ring-type design, and (4) full palatal coverage. 2. The mandibular lingual bar was chosen over the lingual plate by a 3:1 ratio. 3. The natural palatal metal finish was perferred to the highly polished finish. 4. Metal borders parallel to tongue movement were better tolerated than those lying transverse. 5. Thickening of the posterior strap to permit its narrowing was not clinically feasible. 6. In general, patients adapted best to major connectors that covered the least amount of soft tissues.

Chromium↗
PubMed1990

[Critical evaluation of an acrylic partial denture].

Removable partial denture with a rigid metal construction meets the three main requirements of the up-to-date prosthodontics, i.e. properly directed chewing forces through accurate proprioceptive control of the masticatory muscles and preservation of the healthy periodontal tissues. Because of its flexibility the acrylic partial denture does not fulfill the above mentioned criteria so it can be, except in particular clinical indications, considered as a temporary and transitional prosthodontic treatment.

Acrylic Resins↗
PubMed2000

Technical failure rates of double crown-retained removable partial dentures.

Removable partial dentures (RPD) can be retained using conical crowns or parallel-sided telescopic double crowns. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the technical failure rate of the two retainer systems. One hundred seventeen dentures made by dentists of the medical school were included. Seventy-four RPD were retained with parallel-sided crowns (n = 251) and 43 with conical crowns (n = 160). Following the medical report follow-ups from January 1992 to December 1998, technical RPD failures were noted and analyzed. Technical problems occurred during the observation time in 48.8% of the conical retained dentures and 34.2% of the parallel-sided retained dentures. In both cases, loss of cementation was most frequently noted, while loss of the facings occurred only with conical crowns. Other technical failures did not depend on the type of retainer system used. These were most frequently problems with the denture base, e.g., fracture of artificial teeth or the metal framework. We conclude that there were different technical failures of both double crown retainer systems. These problems were not insignificant in number but treatable.

Cementation↗
PubMed1980

Ingestion of partial denture.

A partial denture was swallowed by an elderly, mentally incompetent patient. Dentists must be aware of the problems encountered in the treatment of such patients and the need to increase dental service to these patients beyond the office setting.

Airway Obstruction↗
PubMed1987

Porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns as replacements for denture teeth in removable partial denture construction.

A procedure has been described for using porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns in place of denture teeth on a removable partial denture. Improved esthetic results are achieved when replacement denture teeth are made simultaneously with, and visually match, adjacent tooth crowns. This procedure provides a superior treatment result, particularly where multiple unilateral anterior teeth are lost and a removable partial denture is indicated.

Crowns↗
PubMed1991

Occlusal plane modification of an existing maxillary complete denture prior to removable partial denture construction: a case report.

Success in fabricating removable partial dentures, Kennedy Class I and Class II in particular, is highly dependent on proper orientation of the occlusal plane. The closer to the ideal, the better the prosthesis will function and provide proper esthetics and phonetics. This case report presents the diagnosis and occlusal modification of an existing maxillary complete denture to improve the patient's masticatory function with the fabrication of a removable partial denture.

Dental Occlusion, Balanced↗
PubMed2005

90% of fixed partial dentures survive 5 years. How long do conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) survive and how frequently do complications occur?

DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1966-April 2004) provided the primary data source along with the bibliographies from identified articles and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: As there were no randomised controlled trials, English language prospective and retrospective cohort studies were selected if they had a mean follow-up of >/=5 years, included patients who were clinically examined at follow-up, reported details on suprastructures and described at least one-third of reconstructions as fixed partial dentures (FPDs). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and agreement determined by kappa. Three reviewers extracted data on the survival and success of the reconstructions and on biological and technical complications. Studies deemed sufficiently similar by design were pooled using negative binomial regression with robust standard errors. Ten-year survival risks were calculated using exp(-10 x failure rate) and 10-year failure risks using 1-S(10). RESULTS: 17 retrospective and two prospective cohort studies including 1764 patients with 3548 FPDs analyzed in total. Meta-analysis was undertaken and after exclusion of one outlier a 10-year FPD survival of 92% was estimated. Only four studies provided information on FPD success - pooled complication rate was 34.1/1000 FPD years (95% CI 16-74). Exclusion of one outlier resulted in an estimated 10-year success of 81.1%. Considering biological complications, the estimated 10-years risk for caries at abutments was 9.5% (95% CI 4.6-89.9) while that for FPD loss due to caries and periodontal disease were 2.6% (95% CI 1.6-4.2) and 0.5% (95% CI 0.1-2.2), respectively. Estimated 10-year risks for technical complications were: 6.4% (95% CI 3.9-10.4) for loss of retention; 2.1% (95% CI 1.4-3.2) for loss of FPD due to abutment fracture and 3.2% (95% CI 1.5-6.5) for material fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated success and survival rates for conventional FPDs largely confirm those of previous reviews. Technical complications such as loss of retention, which have not been reviewed before, resulted in a greater risk of FPD loss than did biological complications.

Comment↗