Functional evaluation of oral rehabilitation with removable partial dentures after five years

• Autor(a) principal: Cosme, Dúcia Caldas
• Data de Publicação: 2006
• Outros Autores: Baldisserotto, Simone Michielon, Fernandes, Eduardo de Lima, Rivaldo, Elken Gomes, Rosing, Cassiano Kuchenbecker, Shinkai, Rosemary Sadami Arai
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/3353
• topic: Prótese parcial removível; Retenção em prótese dentária; Higiene; Removable partial denture; Dental prosthesis retention; Hygiene

Most removable partial denture (RPD) wearers are satisfied with their prostheses, but the factors that influence satisfaction and acceptance are still not determined. OBJECTIVE: This study explored technical, biological, and satisfaction variables for the functioning of RPDs after five years, and compared the evaluation by the patient and by the clinician. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty adults (39 females, 11 males) were re-examined after five years of RPD service. Data were collected through clinical examination and a structured questionnaire to record the conditions of supporting soft tissues, prosthesis acceptance and technical characteristics, mastication, esthetics, comfort, hygiene, and need for professional intervention. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation. RESULTS: More than 50% of patients classified their RPDs as excellent regarding retention, mastication, esthetics, comfort, and hygiene. In the professional evaluation, retention and stability were considered excellent in more than 66% of cases, and hygiene of teeth and prostheses was considered good in 52% and 46%, respectively. The metallic framework and acrylic base were considered adapted in 92% of cases. Prosthesis acceptance was associated with retention, mastication, esthetics, hygiene, and comfort evaluated by the patient, and with retention, stability, and condition of the framework evaluated by the clinician. Retention and mastication/comfort evaluated by the patient had moderate positive correlation with retention and stability measured by the clinician. There was no association of hygiene evaluation by the patient and by the clinician. CONCLUSIONS: After five years, the oral rehabilitation with RPDs was satisfactory for most cases. There was correspondence between retention/retention and mastication-comfort/stability variables evaluated by the patient and by the clinician. Oral and prosthesis hygiene were not related.