hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7

Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj

Gregory Polyzois ; Zavod za protetiku Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Ateni, Atena, Grčka
Panagiotis Lagouvardos ; Zavod za oralnu kirurgiju Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Ateni, Atena, Grčka
Josip Kranjčić ; Zavod za fiksnu protetiku Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Denis Vojvodić ; Klinički zavod za stomatološku protetiku, KB Dubrava, Zagreb, Hrvatska

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (224 KB) str. 316-324 preuzimanja: 241* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Polyzois, G., Lagouvardos, P., Kranjčić, J. i Vojvodić, D. (2015). Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (4), 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
MLA 8th Edition
Polyzois, Gregory, et al. "Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 4, 2015, str. 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7. Citirano 24.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Polyzois, Gregory, Panagiotis Lagouvardos, Josip Kranjčić i Denis Vojvodić. "Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 4 (2015): 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
Harvard
Polyzois, G., et al. (2015). 'Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(4), str. 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
Vancouver
Polyzois G, Lagouvardos P, Kranjčić J, Vojvodić D. Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 24.06.2021.];49(4):316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
IEEE
G. Polyzois, P. Lagouvardos, J. Kranjčić i D. Vojvodić, "Savitljiva mobilna djelomična zubna proteza: istraživanje o stajalištima i znanju doktora dentalne medicine u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 4, str. 316-324, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (224 KB) str. 316-324 preuzimanja: 331* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Polyzois, G., Lagouvardos, P., Kranjčić, J. i Vojvodić, D. (2015). Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (4), 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
MLA 8th Edition
Polyzois, Gregory, et al. "Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 4, 2015, str. 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7. Citirano 24.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Polyzois, Gregory, Panagiotis Lagouvardos, Josip Kranjčić i Denis Vojvodić. "Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 4 (2015): 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
Harvard
Polyzois, G., et al. (2015). 'Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(4), str. 316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
Vancouver
Polyzois G, Lagouvardos P, Kranjčić J, Vojvodić D. Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 24.06.2021.];49(4):316-324. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7
IEEE
G. Polyzois, P. Lagouvardos, J. Kranjčić i D. Vojvodić, "Flexible Removable Partial Denture Prosthesis: A Survey of Dentists’ Attitudes and Knowledge in Greece and Croatia", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 4, str. 316-324, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/7

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Svrha: U ovom su se istraživanju s pomoću upitnika željeli istražiti znanje, stajališta i moguće razlike u korištenju savitljivih pomičnih djelomičnih proteza (PDP) među doktorima dentalne medicine (DDM) u Grčkoj i Hrvatskoj. Materijali i metode: Upitnik od 16 pitanja sastavljen je izvorno na engleskome jeziku te je preveden na grčki i hrvatski dvosmjernim prevođenjem. Nakon toga testirani su smisao, točnost, jasnoća i homogenost prijevoda upitnika, a u tome je sudjelovalo nekoliko grčkih i hrvatskih doktora dentalne medicine koji govore engleski gotovo kao materinski jezik. Nakon potrebnih ispravaka upitnici su korišteni u dvjema online anketama koje su, zajedno s informacijom o anketi i upitom o pristanku ispitanika na anketu, poslane na e-adrese gotovo četiri tisuće doktora dentalne medicine u svakoj državi. Prikupljeni podatci analizirani su Hi-kvadrat testom uz razinu značajnosti od a = 0,05. Rezultati: U istraživanju je sudjelovalo 378 DDM-a iz Grčke i 304 iz Hrvatske. Njih 137 (36,2 %) iz Grčke i 56 (18,4 %) iz Hrvatske opskrbljivali su svoje pacijente savitljivim PDP-ima. Statistička analiza provedena među svim DDM-ima koji izrađuju savitljive proteze nije otkrila značajnu razliku među spolovima (P > 0,05), ali jest značajnu razliku među dobnim skupinama (P < 0,01), godinama rada u struci (P < 0,05), specijalizaciji (P < 0,001) te instruiranosti o savitljivim protezama (P < 0,001). Analiza među DDM-ima u objema državama pokazala je razliku u spolu i dobnim skupinama (P < 0,01), ali ne i među grupama DDM-a s više iskustva, specijalizacijom ili instruiranosti o savitljivim protezama (P > 0,05). Zaključak: Istraživanje je upozorilo na razlike među zemljama u postotcima DDM-a koji upotrebljavaju, odabiru i svojim pacijentima omogućuju izradu savitljivih PDP-a. Dob DDM-a, godine rada i instruiranost bili su povezani s opskrbom pacijenata savitljivim protezama, a udobnost, estetika i cijena bili su razlozi za odluku o uporabi savitljivih PDP-a. Kliničke implikacije: Premda DDM-i tijekom školovanja nisu educirani o savitljivim PDP-ima, njih gotovo trećina svojim pacijentima predlaže takvu vrstu terapije. Kako bi ovi protetski radovi bili dugoročno uspješni, potrebno je kliničko obrazovanje, više iskustva i svakako više istraživanja u ovom području.

Ključne riječi
djelomične zubne proteze, mobilne; stav zdravstvenih djelatnika; stomatolozi; najlon

Hrčak ID: 149795

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/149795

▼ Article Information



Introduction

Functional and esthetic rehabilitation of a completely or partially edentulous patient includes a battery of treatment modalities varying in the degree of invasiveness and reversibility along with the risks and benefits. In the past, patients had low expectations for the esthetic and functional outcomes of conventional removable dental prostheses. However, nowadays these expectations have changed leading to more patients demanding the esthetic aspect of their prostheses.

Particularly for the patients facing partial edentulism, the metal clasps of removable partial denture prostheses (RPDPs) in the esthetic area seem to be undesirable for both esthetic and psychological reasons with an increasing number of them avoiding and disliking their use (1, 2).

In response to this shift in expectations and demand, manufacturers and dental healthcare providers (dentists, dental technicians) have developed innovative, esthetic, natural-looking materials and methods for fabricating removable dental prostheses.

From the 1950s thermoplastic resins have been available and can be used to fabricate RPDPs or removable complete denture prostheses (RCDPs), (3-7). Many types of thermoplastic materials like nylon (polyamides), polyesters (polyethylene terephthalate), polycarbonates, acrylics (polymethyl methacrylate), polypropylenes and acetal resin (polyoxymethylene) can be used to fabricate flexible RPDPs (8, 9). From the aforementioned materials, nylon, acetal resin, polypropylene and acrylic resin are the most widely used (1).

Thermoplastic RPDPs have been mostly known as flexible dentures but other commonly used terms are non-clasp dentures, metal-free dentures, clasp free dentures and non-metal clasp dentures (2). Dentures made ​​of these materials should show some advantages over the conventional acrylic ones. Since the materials are flexible, undercuts of the alveolar ridges can be engaged for improved retention and insertion in the mouth is much easier, which is especially important in cases of microstomia (e.g. scleroderma). Since the materials are resistant to plastic deformation and fracture, the denture base may be thinner than in classic acrylic dentures. Also, there is no risk of any allergic reaction (no residual monomer) with improved esthetics due to the transparency of the material that reflects the shade of the mucosa and the absence of metal clasps which makes dentures almost invisible in the mouth (10).

Flexible RPDPs typically do not contain any metal elements (unless a metal structure is combined with thermoplastic retentive elements) and tooth colored clasps are an esthetic option. Even though flexible RPDPs have been available to the dental profession for almost 65 years and have received much attention in the dental advertisements over the past two decades there is almost no evidence-based information in the relevant literature concerning clinical performance, follow-up or incidence data for these prostheses (1, 8). Most relevant articles focus on case or case series reports and evaluation of physicomechanical properties of thermoplastic materials (11-14).

The clinical performance and patient’s acceptance of nylon RPDPs and RCDPs compared to acrylic resin ones were evaluated for 18 months in two studies (15, 16).

In the first study only two cases of midline fracture were reported, and mastication, phonetics and tolerance found to be improved with flexible maxillary dentures opposing natural mandibular teeth. Patients also reported gradual fading of color and teeth debonding. In the second among 18 patients who replaced their acrylic resin prostheses with flexible ones, they denoted 100% preference for the flexible dentures in all functional parameters evaluated, such as mucosal irritation, halitosis, fractures and comfort.

Demographic or incidence data of flexible RPDPs were reported in a survey of 5 dental laboratories in Wisconsin within a 4-month period. The incidence of flexible RPDPs was 5.2% of 903 RPDPs of all types fabricated (17).

From the aforementioned, the lack of data in the relevant literature is obvious and information on attitudes, knowledge and awareness of dentists towards flexible RPDPs. The purpose of this study was to investigate through a questionnaire the knowledge, attitudes and possible differences in the use of flexible RPDPs among dentists in Greece and Croatia.

Material and methods

An English questionnaire of 16 questions was originally created online using Polldaddy’s survey tool (www.polldaddy.com) and tested for its apprehension, precision, clarity and homogeneity by a number of native English speaking Greek dentists. Following the necessary corrections, the final questionnaire was translated by bilingual professionals into Greek and Croatian language which was again tested and changed accordingly for best language adaptation. This process included two way translations (18). The URLs of the two questionnaires, also created online by Polldaddy’s survey tool were sent by email to nearly 4000 dentists of each country, in order to have a response number of about 370 dentists, a predefined sample size based on a 5% confidence interval (CI) and 95% confidence level. The number of 4000 represents the total number of dentists in Croatia and the 1/3 of active dentists in Greece, from most of its major areas. For both surveys permission was given by the respective authorities (Greek Dental Association, Ethics Committee of the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb).

The created online surveys contained dichotomous and polytomous (nominal and ordinal) closed-ended questions, and a start message informing the participants about the aims of the study, its confidentiality and anonymity. Most of the questions were signed as mandatory, rank ordered questions were randomized and only one response per computer was allowed. The English questionnaire is given in Table I.

Table I The English questionnaire prepared as the base for the Greek and Croatian
1. Your sex
  Male ◻ Female ◻
2. Your age
  <36 ◻ 36-45 ◻ 46-55 ◻ 56-65 ◻ >65 ◻
3. Years of practicing dentistry
  0-5 ◻ 6-10 ◻ 11-15 ◻ 16-20 ◻ 21-25 ◻ 26-30 ◻ 30 ◻
4. School of graduation
  Athens ◻ Τhessaloniki ◻ Other ◻ ……. / Zagreb ◻ Rijeka ◻ Other ◻ ……..
5. Are you practicing …
  General dentistry ◻ Dental specialty ◻ define …….
6. Rank your preference for RPDP types when all could be used
  Metallic framework ◻ Flexible ◻ Acrylic ◻
7. Have you ever been instructed the concept of flexible dentures?
  Yes ◻ No ◻
8. How often do you provide flexible dentures?
  Never ◻ Rarely ◻ Quite often ◻ Flexibles only ◻
9. Rank the following reasons for your decision to provide a flexible denture
  Better aesthetics ◻ More comfort for the patient ◻ Less fabrication time ◻
  Allergy to metals ◻ Less cost ◻
10. Your flexible dentures are planned for …
  Temporary use only ◻ Permanent use only ◻ Both ◻
11. The decision to make a flexible denture is taken by …
  You ◻ The patient ◻
12. Do you know the commercial name of the product you are using for the construction of flexible dentures
  No ◻ Yes ◻ give us the name ………..
13. What problems have you noticed during the use of flexible dentures
  Discoloration of the base ◻ Clasp fracture ◻ Debonding of teeth ◻
  Fracture of the base ◻ None ◻ Other ………..
14. Which of the following reasons was mostly responsible for the replacement of a flexible denture.
  Reasons related to teeth and abutments ◻ Reasons related to flexible base material ◻
  Reasons related to gums/oral mucosa ◻
15. The replacement of the flexible denture was done in …
  <1 year ◻ 1-2 years ◻ 3-4 years ◻ 5-6 years ◻ >6 years ◻
16. How satisfied you were from the overall usage of flexible dentures, one year after placement.
  Not at all ◻ Little ◻ Enough ◻ Much ◻ Very much ◻

Progress and response rate of the survey was monitored and 2 reminding emails were sent before the reach of the final sample units number, in a period of 3 months. Both cross-sectional surveys took place and completed about the same period of time. Collected data were evaluated for their accuracy and consistency and analyzed statistically by chi-square tests at a=.05 level of significance.

Results

378 dentists from Greece (5% CI) and 304 from Croatia (5.4% CI) participated in the study. A small number of respondents skipped at least one non-obligatory question and for this reason the percentages were based on the actual number of respondents for each question. Table II shows details for gender, age, years in practice, specialty, instruction (taught) and provision of flexible dental prostheses of all respondents. Statistical analysis (chi square test) revealed significant differences between the two target samples in respect to most of the above parameters, except for the specialists and the instructed to flexibles respondents (Table II).

Table II Respondents’ profiles and differences between the two countries.
ItemGroupGreeceCroatiaTotal
no (%)
no (%)
no (%)
PGr-Cr
SexMale232 (62.4)86 (28.9)318 (47.5)<.001
Female
140 (37.6)
211 (71.1)
351 (52.5)
Age<3699 (26.6)123 (41.4)222 (33.2)<.001
36-45121 (32.5)77 (25.9)198 (29.6).063
>45
152 (40.9)
97 (32.7)
249 (37.2)
.029
Years in
practice
<11124 (33.3)139 (46.8)263 (39.3)<.001
11-20114 (30.6)73 (24.6)187 (28.0).082
>20
134 (36.1)
85 (28.6)
219 (32.7)
.043
SpecialtyNo294 (79.2)253 (85.2)547 (81.9).048
Yes
77 (20.8)
44 (14.8)
121 (18.1)
PreferenceMetallic246 (78.3)191(71.4)437 (69.1).001
Acrylic49 (13.0)64 (14.2)113 (17.9).045
Flexible
33 (8.7)
49 (14.4)
82 (13.0)
.024
Instructed
in flexibles
No309 (83.3)251 (86.0)560 (84.5).346
Yes
62 (16.7)
41 (14.0)
103 (15.5)
Provision
of flexibles
No235 (63.2)240 (81.1)475 (71.1)<.001
Yes137 (36.8)56 (18.9)193 (28.9)

PGr-Cr= probability for differences in respondent’s percentages between countries.

137 dentists from Greece and 56 from Croatia responded positively for providing flexible RPDPs as part of their treatment options offered (Table II). Their profile and differences between the two countries are shown in Table III. Statistical analysis for all the providers together, indicated no significant difference between genders (P>.05), but significant differences between age groups (P<.01), years in practice (P<.05), specialization (P <.001), and instruction on flexible prostheses (P <.001) (Table III). Analysis between the two countries showed differences for gender and age groups (P<.01) but no differences between the more experienced (over 11y), specialized or instructed groups (P >.05).

Table III Number and percentages* of respondent’s provision of flexible RPDPs according to their sex, age, years in practice, specialization and instruction.
GroupsGreece
No (%)
Croatia
No (%)
Total
No (%)
PGr-Cr
Male84 (36.2)a16 (18.6)a100 (31.4)a.003
Female53 (37.8)a40 (18.9)a93 (26.5)a<.001
Age <36 y29 (29.3)a24 (19.5)a53 (23.9)a.089
Age 36-45 y45 (37.2)a15 (19.5)a60 (30.3)ab.008
Age >45 y63 (41.4)a
17 (17.5)a
80 (32.1)b
<.001
Practice <11 y40 (32.2)a25 (18.0)a65 (24.7)a.007
Practice 11-2037 (32.4)a15 (20.5)a52 (27.8)ab.076
Practice >21y60 (44.8)b16 (18.8)a76 (34.7)b<.001
GPractitioner120(40.8)a38 (15.1)a158 (28.9)a<.001
Specialist17(22.1)b
7 (15.9)a
24 (19.8)b
.413
Not instructed90 (29.1)a23 (9.2)a113 (20.2)a<.001
Instructed47 (75.8)b22 (53.6)b69 (67.0)b.512

*Percentages are based on respondent’s number in each group to the number of all respondents in the group for each country.
Column PGr-Cr shows statistical differences between countries in the frequencies for the same horizontal group.
Different superscript letters indicate statistical differences between groups in each item of the same column. Same letters mean no difference at a=.05.

The preference of respondents for RPD type was recorded as weighted ranks. RPDPs with metallic framework had the lowest (best) score (1.40), flexibles the second lowest (2.14) and acrylics the highest (worst) (2.45). The reasons for provision of flexible RPDPs were also ranked and the weighted scores showed that “more comfort for the patient” was the reason with the lowest score (2.85), followed by “better esthetics” (2.91), “less fabrication time” (3.00), “allergy to metal” (3.06) and “less cost” (3.16). Statistical analysis showed that preferences for RPDPs were significantly different (P<.001), but reasons for deciding the flexible RPDPs were not (P>.05). No significant differences between the two countries were noted, either for the preferences (P>.05) or for the reasons (P>.05).

The reasons according to respondents, for providing and replacing flexible RPDPs are shown in Table IV. Most flexibles were recommended by the dentist, and planned to be used as both provisional and permanent appliances. The material mainly used for the fabrication of flexible RPDPs was polyamide (87% in Greece and 37% in Croatia). Their performance after 1 year in place was satisfying for the dentists and the problems they presented during their functioning in the mouth were related to discoloration of the base, fracture of clasps and debonding of teeth. Nearly half of the respondents relate the replacement of the flexible RPDPs to problems in abutments and more than 50% replaced after 2 years of use. Table IV also shows the differences between the two countries (PGr-Cr) along with the differences between the groups of the same question (column superscripts).

Table IV Reasons for providing and replacing flexible RPDPs
QuestionAnswerGreece
no (%)
Croatia
no (%)
Total
no (%)
PGr-Cr
Decided byDentist117 (90.7)a26 (56.3) a143(81.2)a<.001
Patient
12 (9.3) b
21 (44.7) a
33 (18.8)b
Used asProvisional41 (31.3)b5 (10.9)b46 (26.0)a.007
Permanent25 (19.1)c19 (41.3)a44 (24.8)a.003
Both
65 (49.6)a
22 (47.8)a
87 (49.1)b
.834
Reasons for
providing
flexibles
Esthetics40 (29.4)a11 (19.6)b51 (26.6)ab.164
Comfort35 (25.7)a26 (46.4)a61 (31.8)a.005
Cost33 (24.3)a8 (14.3)b41 (21.3)b.125
Time10 (7.3)b4 (7.1)b14 (7.3)c.959
Allergy
18 (13.2)b
7 (12.5)b
25 (13.0)c
.891
Problems
Noticed
(by 123 in Greece and 46 in Croatia)
Base Discoloration78 (63.4)a23 (50.0)ab101(59.8)a.113
Clasp fracture48 (39.0)b18 (39.1)b66 (40.2)b.990
Tooth Debonding25 (20.3)c18 (39.1)b43 (25.4)c.012
Base fracture9 (7.3)d7 (15.2)c16 (9.5)d.118
Other24 (19.5)c12 (26.1)bc36 (21.3)c.363
None
19 (15.4)c
0 (0.0)
19 (11.2)d
.005
Replacement
reasons
Teeth57 (42.2)a12 (38.7)a69 (41.6)a.720
Mucosa36 (26.7)b12 (38.7)a48 (28.9)b.182
Material
42 (31.1)ab
7 (22.6)a
49 (29.5)b
.348
Replacement
time
0-2y54 (52.9)a11 (33.3)a62 (46.3)a.050
3-4y21 (20.6)b11 (33.3)a32 (23.9)b.135
5-6y11 (10.8)b10 (30.3)a21(15.7)bc.007
>6y
16 (15.7)b
1 (3.0)b
17 (12.7)b
.057
Satisfied
after 1 y
No or Little31 (23.7)b3 (6.5)b34 (19.2)b.011
Enough or More100 (76.3)a43 (93.5)a143(80.8)a

Column PGr-Cr shows statistical differences between countries in the frequencies for the same group.
Different superscript letters indicate statistical differences between groups in each item of the same column. Same letters mean no difference at a=.05).

Discussion

This study investigated the attitudes and knowledge about flexible RPDPs among dentists in two European countries, namely Greece and Croatia. The results revealed that only 1 out of 6 of all respondents were instructed about the flexible RPDPs concept, but 1 out of 3 do provide a flexible prosthesis as an alternative to the conventional metallic or acrylic one. Provision of flexibles was found to be associated with age, years of practice, specialization and instruction to flexibles of the respondent practitioners but not with their gender. A difference was found between the two countries in the provision of flexibles, but not in the percentage of instructed practitioners. The difference in the provision is higher in Greece than in Croatia for both genders, for ages over 45, for those with more years in practice, for general practitioners and for not instructed respondents. Among all, 1 out of 10 seemed to prefer flexibles in place of metallic RPDPs and the reasons were comfort, esthetics and cost for their patients. No significant differences for the preferences and the reasons were noticed between the two countries, except for comfort.

Gender did not play a significant role in the provision of flexibles, even within the countries. Percentages for both genders were higher in Greece than in Croatia and this can be explained by the fact that provision of flexibles in general was higher in Greece than in Croatia (36.8% and 18.9% respectively). Age played a significant role in the provision of flexibles but not within countries. Older practitioners provide flexibles in higher percent, meaning that younger practitioners are more reluctant to adopt new techniques. Years in practice seems to follow the same general pattern as age. Greek respondents present also a significant increase with age. If years in practice means more experience for the respondents, then practitioners with more experience seem to provide flexible prostheses more easily than the less experienced. This is also reported by Hill et al (1). Specialization was found to play a negative role in the provision of flexibles since more general practitioners than specialists provided flexible prostheses to their patients. Because there is still not enough clinical evidence for the use of flexibles, promotional literature may affect more general practitioners to adopt this treatment method, as Hill et al. also noted (1). Although this does not apply to the Croatian sample, where both groups provide flexible prostheses in the same percentage, an explanation can be given by the difference of instructed respondents contained in the specialists (20.4%) and not-specialists (12.9%) groups. Instruction plays a significant role in the provision to flexibles, as is discussed below.

Instructed practitioners providing flexibles are 3 times more than not instructed. This is actually expected, since not-instructed are more reluctant to recommend and provide flexibles due to the absence of experience and education.

In general, 1out of 3 respondents prefer flexibles and acrylic prostheses in place of metallic ones and this is in agreement with the results of Pun et al. (17) survey. Flexible prostheses were decided on differently in the two countries. The decision in Greece was made mostly by the dentists whereas in Croatia the patients seemed to affect the decision equally to dentists. This is probably due to some differences in the provision of dental care between the two countries. Flexibles planned to be used primarily as provisional prostheses in Greece and as permanent in Croatia, although in total, permanent and provisional use was found equal. The main reasons for providing flexible prostheses were comfort for the patient, esthetics and cost, with almost the same percentage between respondents and with only small differences between the two countries. The problems related to the flexibles were discoloration of the base, fracture of clasps and debonding of teeth. Problem percentages were the same in both countries. The reasons for replacing flexible prostheses were reported to be related in a decreasing order with problems in abutment teeth, denture base material and finally the supporting tissues. Satisfaction after 1 year in place of flexibles was high in both countries. However, the satisfaction was higher in Croatia than in Greece.

From the abovementioned, it is evident that there are differences between the two countries in the use of flexible prostheses. Instructions for their use are given by promoting literature provided by manufacturing companies, dental laboratories and not by academic institutions. That could be the reason why younger, less experienced dentists do not recommend flexible prostheses. Also, little evidence exists on their clinical usage, performance and duration. For these reasons, clinical studies are urgently needed to investigate their value in long term performance and patients’ satisfaction along with techniques overcoming material inherited problems.

Conclusion

This survey on the use of flexible RPDPs indicated differences between the two countries in the number of dentists using, selecting and providing these dentures as an alternative to metallic RPDPs for their patients. Only 1/5 to 1/3 of the practitioners provide flexible RPDPs for their patients but over 75% of them were satisfied with their performance after 1 year. Age, years in practice and instruction of the practitioner are all related to the provision of these dentures, while comfort, esthetics and cost were the main reasons for deciding flexible RPDPs for their patients. Base discoloration, clasp fracture and tooth debonding were their main problems in a decreasing order.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest None declared

References

1 

Hill EE, Rubel B, Smith JB. Flexible removable partial dentures: a basic overview. Gen Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;62(2):32–6. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24598492

2 

Fueki K, Ohkubo C, Yatabe M, Arakawa I, Arita M, Ino S, et al. Clinical application of removable partial dentures using thermoplastic resin-part I: definition and indication of non-metal clasp dentures. J Prosthodont Res. 2014 Jan;58(1):3–10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2013.12.002 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24461323

3 

Ardelean L, Bortun C, Motoc M. Metal-free removable partial dentures made of a thermoplastic acetal resin and two polyamide resins. Materiale Plastice. 2007;44:345–8.

4 

Negrutiu M, Sinescu C, Romanu M, Pop D, Lakatos S. Thermoplastics resins for flexible framework removable partial dentures. Timisoara Medical J. 2005;55:295–9.

5 

Singh K, Aeran H, Kumar N, Gupta N. Flexible thermoplastic denture base materials for aesthetical removable partial denture framework. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013 Oct;7(10):2372–3. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24298532

6 

Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A. Functional esthetic rehabilitation of a 7-year-female patient with hereditary ectodermal dysplasia using flexible denture. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013 Nov-Dec;79(6):826–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.120744 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24177623

7 

Tannamala PK, Pulagam M, Pottem SR, Karnam S. Flexible resins in the rehabilitation of maxillectomy patient. Indian J Dent Res. 2012 Jan-Feb;23(1):97–100. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.99048 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22842258

8 

Fueki K, Ohkubo C, Yatabe M, Arakawa I, Arita M, Ino S, et al. Clinical application of removable partial dentures using thermoplastic resin. Part II: Material properties and clinical features of non-metal clasp dentures. J Prosthodont Res. 2014 Apr;58(2):71–84. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2014.03.002 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24746524

9 

Takabayashi Y. Characteristics of denture thermoplastic resins for non-metal clasp dentures. Dent Mater J. 2010 Aug;29(4):353–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2009-114 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20644329

10 

Parvizi A, Lindquist T, Schneider R, Williamson D, Boyer D, Dawson DV. Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of injection molded denture base material to that of conventional pressure-pack acrylic resin. J Prosthodont. 2004 Jun;13(2):83–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04014.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15210003

11 

Naylor WP, Manor RC. Fabrication of a flexible prosthesis, for the edentulous scleroderma patient with microstomia. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Oct;50(4):536–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90577-2 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6579290

12 

Yavuz T, Aykent F. Temporary flexible removable partial denture: a clinical report. Clin Dent Res. 2012;36:41–4.

13 

Lowe LG. Flexible denture flanges for patients exhibiting undercut tuberosities and reduced width of the buccal vestibule: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Aug;92(2):128–31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.026 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15295320

14 

Gladstone S, Sudeep S, Arun Kumar G. An evaluation of the hardness of flexible denture base resins. Health Sci. 2012;1:JS003B.

15 

Dhiman RK, Roy Chowdhury SK. Midline fractures in single maxillary complete acrylic vs flexible dentures. MJAFI. 2009;65:141–5.

16 

Singh JP, Dhiman RK, Bedi R, Girish SH. Flexible denture base material: a viable alternative to conventional acrylic denture base material. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011 Oct;2(4):313–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.91795 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22346159

17 

Pun DK, Waliszewski MP, Waliszewski KJ, Berzins D. Survey of partial removable dental prosthesis (partial RDP) types in a distinct patient population. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Jul;106(1):48–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60093-0 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21723993

18 

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124735


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[engleski]

Posjeta: 1.067 *