Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population
Statement of problem Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. Purpose This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. M...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2011-07, Vol.106 (1), p.48-56 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 56 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 48 |
container_title | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry |
container_volume | 106 |
creator | Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS Berzins, David, PhD |
description | Statement of problem Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. Purpose This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. Material and Methods Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. Results Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. Conclusions RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:48-56) |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60093-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_874898135</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391311600930</els_id><sourcerecordid>874898135</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-39fb31671d2145688a37f2cdfe14f0c9682e8ed9534c8fc6ca6da853719faf3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1PGzEQhq2KqqTQnwDyjXDY1rPeD_sCqii0lZCKgJ4txx4Lw2Z3sb2R8u_rJMChF04eWe88M_MQcgTsKzBovt0xVpYFl8DnAKcNY5IX7AOZAZNt0YgK9sjsLbJPPsf4yBgTdQufyH4Jbcml5DOyuJvCCtd0cHTUIXnd0YDLYaUXHVKLfcofYxhiesDoI52_hm5_3JzStB4xUt9TTa2PyfcmZUryuY2Owzh1uR76Q_LR6S7il5f3gPy9ury_-FVc__n5--L7dWEqkCnv6RYcmhZsCVXdCKF560pjHULlmJGNKFGglTWvjHCmMbqxWtS8Bem045ofkJMdN-_7PGFMaumjwa7TPQ5TVKKthBTA65ysd0mTL4sBnRqDX-qwVsDUxq7a2lUbdQpAbe0qlvuOXyZMiyXat65XnTlwvgtgvnPlMahosg2D1gc0SdnBvzvi7D-C6Xzvje6ecI3xcZhCnyUqULFUbAfZMAC2BMb_AWi9nxg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>874898135</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS ; Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD ; Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS ; Berzins, David, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS ; Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD ; Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS ; Berzins, David, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Statement of problem Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. Purpose This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. Material and Methods Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. Results Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. Conclusions RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:48-56)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60093-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21723993</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Cohort Studies ; Dental Clasps - classification ; Dental Clasps - standards ; Dental Clasps - statistics & numerical data ; Dental Models ; Dentistry ; Denture Design - classification ; Denture Design - standards ; Denture, Partial, Removable - classification ; Denture, Partial, Removable - standards ; Denture, Partial, Removable - statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Interprofessional Relations ; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - classification ; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation ; Laboratories, Dental ; Mandible ; Maxilla ; Quality Control</subject><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2011-07, Vol.106 (1), p.48-56</ispartof><rights>The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><rights>2011 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-39fb31671d2145688a37f2cdfe14f0c9682e8ed9534c8fc6ca6da853719faf3a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-39fb31671d2145688a37f2cdfe14f0c9682e8ed9534c8fc6ca6da853719faf3a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391311600930$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21723993$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berzins, David, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description>Statement of problem Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. Purpose This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. Material and Methods Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. Results Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. Conclusions RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:48-56)</description><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Dental Clasps - classification</subject><subject>Dental Clasps - standards</subject><subject>Dental Clasps - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Dental Models</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Denture Design - classification</subject><subject>Denture Design - standards</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Removable - classification</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Removable - standards</subject><subject>Denture, Partial, Removable - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interprofessional Relations</subject><subject>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - classification</subject><subject>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Laboratories, Dental</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Maxilla</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1PGzEQhq2KqqTQnwDyjXDY1rPeD_sCqii0lZCKgJ4txx4Lw2Z3sb2R8u_rJMChF04eWe88M_MQcgTsKzBovt0xVpYFl8DnAKcNY5IX7AOZAZNt0YgK9sjsLbJPPsf4yBgTdQufyH4Jbcml5DOyuJvCCtd0cHTUIXnd0YDLYaUXHVKLfcofYxhiesDoI52_hm5_3JzStB4xUt9TTa2PyfcmZUryuY2Owzh1uR76Q_LR6S7il5f3gPy9ury_-FVc__n5--L7dWEqkCnv6RYcmhZsCVXdCKF560pjHULlmJGNKFGglTWvjHCmMbqxWtS8Bem045ofkJMdN-_7PGFMaumjwa7TPQ5TVKKthBTA65ysd0mTL4sBnRqDX-qwVsDUxq7a2lUbdQpAbe0qlvuOXyZMiyXat65XnTlwvgtgvnPlMahosg2D1gc0SdnBvzvi7D-C6Xzvje6ecI3xcZhCnyUqULFUbAfZMAC2BMb_AWi9nxg</recordid><startdate>20110701</startdate><enddate>20110701</enddate><creator>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS</creator><creator>Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD</creator><creator>Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS</creator><creator>Berzins, David, PhD</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110701</creationdate><title>Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population</title><author>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS ; Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD ; Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS ; Berzins, David, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-39fb31671d2145688a37f2cdfe14f0c9682e8ed9534c8fc6ca6da853719faf3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Dental Clasps - classification</topic><topic>Dental Clasps - standards</topic><topic>Dental Clasps - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Dental Models</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Denture Design - classification</topic><topic>Denture Design - standards</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Removable - classification</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Removable - standards</topic><topic>Denture, Partial, Removable - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interprofessional Relations</topic><topic>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - classification</topic><topic>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Laboratories, Dental</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Maxilla</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berzins, David, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pun, Deo K., DMD, MS</au><au>Waliszewski, Michael P., DDS, MsD</au><au>Waliszewski, Kenneth J., DDS, MS</au><au>Berzins, David, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>2011-07-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>106</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>48</spage><epage>56</epage><pages>48-56</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>Statement of problem Current demographic information on the number and types of removable partial dentures is lacking in the prosthodontic literature. Purpose This study was designed to investigate patterns of tooth loss in patients receiving removable partial dentures (RPDs) in eastern Wisconsin. Material and Methods Digital images (1502) of casts at 5 dental laboratories in eastern Wisconsin were collected. Any prescription requesting fabrication of a removable partial denture was photographed twice. The first photograph was made immediately upon arrival at the laboratory, while the second photograph was made immediately before being returned to the prescribing dentist for the first time. A calibrated investigator analyzed all the photographs for Kennedy Classification, type of RPD, major connector, and other details. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was used to confirm repeatability. Results Kennedy Class I was the most common RPD with a frequency of 38.4%. More than 40% of prescriptions had no design input from the dentist. One in 3 RPDs used acrylic resin or flexible frameworks. One in 5 RPDs had no rests. The horseshoe major connector was the most common maxillary major connector, while the lingual plate was the most common in the mandible. Conclusions RPDs remain a common prosthodontic treatment in this region. Non-metal RPD frameworks are a common treatment type and rarely include rests. These data indicate a changing partially edentulous patient population and a variable commitment to standard levels of prosthodontic care. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:48-56)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>21723993</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60093-0</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3913 |
ispartof | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2011-07, Vol.106 (1), p.48-56 |
issn | 0022-3913 1097-6841 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_874898135 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Cohort Studies Dental Clasps - classification Dental Clasps - standards Dental Clasps - statistics & numerical data Dental Models Dentistry Denture Design - classification Denture Design - standards Denture, Partial, Removable - classification Denture, Partial, Removable - standards Denture, Partial, Removable - statistics & numerical data Humans Interprofessional Relations Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - classification Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - rehabilitation Laboratories, Dental Mandible Maxilla Quality Control |
title | Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T07%3A01%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Survey%20of%20partial%20removable%20dental%20prosthesis%20(partial%20RDP)%20types%20in%20a%20distinct%20patient%20population&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=Pun,%20Deo%20K.,%20DMD,%20MS&rft.date=2011-07-01&rft.volume=106&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=48&rft.epage=56&rft.pages=48-56&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60093-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E874898135%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=874898135&rft_id=info:pmid/21723993&rft_els_id=S0022391311600930&rfr_iscdi=true |