ProstheticsThe Removable Partial Denture Equation PDF
ProstheticsThe Removable Partial Denture Equation PDF
net/publication/253933632
CITATIONS READS
4 324
5 authors, including:
Per-Olof Glantz
Malmö University
202 PUBLICATIONS 6,369 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Per-Olof Glantz on 18 March 2016.
2
The removable partial
denture equation
J. C. Davenport,1 R. M. Basker,2 J. R. Heath,3 J. P. Ralph,4 and P-O. Glantz,5
he title of this part of the series requires immediate explana- • The essential oral functions of appearance, mastication and
T tion. The term ‘equation’ refers to the balance that must be
struck between the good and the bad which can arise from the
speech.
wearing of RPDs. In this chapter we explore the benefits which It is only after this analysis has been completed that the decision
can be conferred on patients by RPDs and, at the same time, of whether or not to treat a particular patient can be taken. For
highlight the possible risks of tissue damage that can be associ- example, prosthetic treatment must not begin until it has been
ated with such prostheses. verified that there is a significant reduction in one or more of the
Every prosthetic treatment is associated with the placement of a essential oral functions. A simple determination of the number
foreign object (the prosthesis) in the mouth of the patient. As a and position of the remaining teeth is not a sufficient foundation
direct consequence of such placement the burden on the tissues in for making the decision of whether or not to initiate treatment.
the oral cavity will be increased. For example, plaque more readily If it is indicated, a treatment plan is then devised identifying the
accumulates on alloplastic materials than biologic ones. Further- various stages and the most appropriate type of prosthesis.
more, even non-toxic materials will release small amounts of their
components into the oral cavity. To justify prosthetic treatment Benefits of RPDs
and to ensure that it is beneficial to the patient, the need for such The potential benefits of RPDs which will be considered in this
treatment must be established, the patient must be appropriately section are their contribution to the following.
motivated, and the dentures properly designed, constructed and
• Appearance
maintained. Thus the initial step in determining if prosthetic
• Speech
treatment is indicated must always be the assessment of:
• Mastication
• The patient’s wishes and concerns • Maintaining the health of the masticatory system:
• The relevant dental and medical history — preventing undesirable tooth movement
• The results of the extra-oral and intra-oral examinations — improving distribution of occlusal load
• Oral hygiene habits and status • Preparation for complete dentures.
a b
Fig. 3 — Appearance
If an incisor is not replaced soon after extraction, successful treatment at
a later date may be compromised. Here, the adjacent teeth have drifted
into the unrestored UL1(21) space. The reduced space does not allow
for an artificial tooth of a realistic size to be used on a denture. If a
reasonable aesthetic result is to be obtained the space must be re-
established by orthodontic treatment.
Fig. 4 — Speech
The loss of maxillary anterior teeth may prevent the clear reproduction
of certain sounds, particularly the ‘F’ and ‘V’ which are made by the lower
lip contacting the edges of the maxillary incisors. The replacement of
missing maxillary anterior teeth will make a significant contribution to the
quality of speech.
a b
From the foregoing examples it will be appreciated that if tooth expected to retain their remaining natural teeth for a consider-
loss is restored in sufficient time to prevent tooth movement, or able number of years, thus allowing the RPD to be regarded as a
to avoid excessive stress being placed on the remaining structures, long-term restoration. But we should remember those patients
the subsequent health of the oral tissues can benefit considerably. whose remaining teeth carry a relatively poor prognosis and for
However, the point should be made that severe damage to the whom, in due course, complete dentures are inevitable. If simple
existing structures is not an inevitable consequence of tooth loss. acrylic RPDs are provided, the patient is able to serve a pros-
The implications of this statement will become apparent later in thetic ‘apprenticeship’ with appliances which receive some sta-
this section when the damaging effects of the dentures them- bility from the few remaining teeth. In the fullness of time these
selves are described. transitional dentures become more extensive as further teeth are
extracted and the patient is gradually eased into the totally artifi-
Preparation for complete dentures cial dentition. This form of transitional treatment can be of con-
Most of this book is devoted to the treatment of patients who are siderable benefit, especially for the elderly patient.
a b
a b
Bone
a b
There is no evidence for the contention that a clasp arm may wear away the enamel surface to a degree that is
significant clinically. However, the movement of a clasp arm may wear the surface of restorative materials.
a b
1 2 3
a b
The second area of responsibility of the clinician is in relation • Clearance of gingival margins
to the design and construction of the denture. Accuracy of the • Simplicity
clinical procedures must, of course, be ensured. In addition, the • Rigid connector.
clinician should produce a design based on criteria that have
been shown to promote continued oral health: These criteria are considered in greater detail in our BDJ book
• Effective support ‘A Clinical Guide to Removable Partial Denture Design’.
For every patient, when a denture is contemplated, it is the disadvantage it is likely that it will be in the patient’s best interest
dentist’s responsibility to assess the advantages and disadvan- that a denture is not prescribed. Of course, where a denture is
tages for that particular individual. The level of disadvantage is required to replace an anterior tooth or teeth, the demand from
influenced primarily by the patient’s dental awareness and the patient will usually be overwhelming even if the level of
plaque control. When the balance of the equation leans towards plaque control is less than satisfactory.
a b
Further reading Renner R P. Periodontal considerations for the construction of removable partial
dentures — I and II. Quintessence Dent Technol 1985; 9: 169-72, 241-245.
RPDs and Oral Health Wagg B J. Root surface caries: a review. Comm Dent Health 1984; 1: 11-20.
Bates J F. Plaque accumulation and partial denture design. In Bates J F, Neill D J, Yap U J, Ong G. Periodontal considerations in restorative dentistry. Part 2: Prostho-
Preiskel H W (ed). Restoration of the Partially Dentate Mouth, 225-236. Chicago: dontic considerations. Dent Update 1995; 22: 13-16.
Quintessence, 1984.
Berg B. Periodontal problems associated with use of distal extension removable partial Survival of Removable Partial Dentures
dentures — a matter of construction? J Oral Rehabil 1985; 12: 369-379. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson C-O. A 25 year longitudinal study of patients treated
Blinkhorn A S. Dental health education: what lessons have we ignored? Br Dent J 1998; with removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22: 595-599.
184: 58-59. Bergman B. Prognosis for prosthodontic treatment of partially edentulous patients. In:
Budtz-Jorgenson E. Oral mucosal lesions associated with the wearing of removable Owall B, Kayser A F, Carlsson G B. Prosthodontics: principles and management
dentures. J Oral Path 1981; 10: 65-80. strategies. London: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996.
Carlsson G E, Hedegård B, Koivumaa K K. Studies in partial denture prosthesis IV. Frank R P, Milgrom P, Leroux B G, Hawkins N R. Treatment outcomes with mandibu-
Final results of a 4-year longitudinal investigation of dentogingivally supported lar removable partial dentures: a population-based study of patient satisfaction.
partial dentures. Acta Odont Scand 1965; 23: 443-472. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 36-45.
Chandler J A and Brudvik J S. Clinical evaluation of patients eight to nine years after Kapur K K, Deupree R, Dent R J, Hasse A L. A randomised clinical trial of two basic
placement of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 736-743. removable partial denture designs. Part I: Comparisons of five year success rates
Germundsson B, Hellman M, Odman P. Effects of rehabilitation with conventional and periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 268-282.
removable partial dentures. Swed Dent J 1984; 8: 171-182. Kapur K K, Garrett N R, Dent R J, Hasse A L. A randomised clinical trial of two basic
Gray R J M, Davies S J, Quayle A A. Temporomandibular disorders. a clinical approach. removable partial denture designs. Part II: Comparisons of masticatory scores.
London: British Dental Association, 1995. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 15-21.
MacEntee M I. Biologic sequelae of tooth replacement with removable partial den- Libby G, Arcuri M R, LaVelle W E, Hebl E. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Pros-
tures: a case for caution. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 70: 132-134. thet Dent 1997; 78: 127-13 1.
McHenry K R, Johansson O B, Christersson L A. The effect of removable partial den- Vermeulen A H B M, Kelyjens H M A M, van’t Hof M A, Kayser A F. Ten-year evalua-
ture framework design on gingival inflammation — a clinical model. J Prosthet tion of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on retreatment, not wearing
Dent 1992; 68: 799-803. and replacement. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 267-272.
Orr S, Linden G J, Newman H N. The effect of partial denture connectors on gingival
health. J Clin Periodontol 1992; 19: 589-594.