Precision attachment-retained removable partial dentures. Part 3. General practitioner results up to 2 years

Citation
B. Owall et L. Jonsson, Precision attachment-retained removable partial dentures. Part 3. General practitioner results up to 2 years, INT J PROST, 11(6), 1998, pp. 574-579
Citations number
16
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry/Oral Surgery & Medicine
Journal title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS
ISSN journal
0893-2174 → ACNP
Volume
11
Issue
6
Year of publication
1998
Pages
574 - 579
Database
ISI
SICI code
0893-2174(199811/12)11:6<574:PARPDP>2.0.ZU;2-X
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the techniques, production pr oblems, and 2-year results of attachment-retained removable partial denture (RPD) treatment provided by general practitioners in Sweden. Materials and Methods: At a major dental laboratory, consecutive cases involving new pro duction of crowns, or of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and RPDs retained wi th precision attachments, were studied. Parameters of the dentition, crown or FPD, type and brand of attachment, etc, as well as early satisfaction by dentist and patient, were recorded using specially designed forms at the d ental laboratory and questionnaires for the dentists. After 2 years, questi onnaires were again sent out to the dentists to record complications and pa tients' and dentists' opinions of the results. The sample gathered totaled 83 constructions. After 2 years, responses for 57 patients, all of whom had distal-extension RPDs, were received. Most drop-outs in the study were exp licable. Results: The most frequently cited reasons for using attachments w ere esthetics and need for crowning the teeth abutting the RPD. McCollum ri gid slide attachment was the predominant brand used (43% of constructions). Dentists and patients were dissatisfied with 6% of the constructions. Duri ng the first 2 years, 22 of 57 constructions were complication-free. Sevent een had attachment complications and 9 had serious complications related to the abutment teeth or RPDs. A comparison between these 2 groups revealed t hat those with complications had every second abutment root-canal treated a nd a Foot post, while the group without complications had every fifth abutm ent root-canal treated. Conclusion: There were many technical and biotechni cal complications and failures; the exact ratio, however, depended on the d efinition of "complications" and "failure." The 2-year results also deviate d considerably from the dentists' opinions of the early results.