Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Battistuzzi, P., Kayser, A. and Kanters, N. (1987)) Partial edentulism, prosthetic treatment and oral function in a Dutch population. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 14, 549- 555. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.1987.tb00751.x

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Clinical performance of removable partial dentures: A retrospective clinical study

    AUTHORS: Maged K. Etman, Darya Bikey

    KEYWORDS: Clinical Performance; Removable Partial Denture; Maxilla; Mandible; Gender

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Stomatology, Vol.2 No.3, September 24, 2012

    ABSTRACT: Removable partial dentures (RPDs) (conventional and implant-supported) treatment is considered a viable option to replace missing teeth as inexpensively as possible, but it has limitations. Objectives: This study reports the effect of gender and location (maxilla vs. mandible) on the clinical performance of removable partial dentures (RPDs). Materials and Methods: A total of 100 Patients who had RPDs delivered between 1990-1995 were evaluated. A 4-point scoring system was used to assess seventeen criteria. These criteria include acceptance, stability, support, retention, adaptation, occlusion, integrity, and design of the pros-theses, rest and rest seat preparation, occlusal wear, esthetics, phonetics, tissue condition, mobility of abutments, gingival and plaque indices. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U non-parametric statistical tests. Results: The results showed that acceptance of RPDs was rated the lowest. Other reasons for failure were poor retention, lack of integrity of the prostheses and inadequate adaptation. Retention and design of major connectors attributed to Mandibular RPD failure. Success rate of 75% was observed in male compared with 67.2% for female. Maxillary RPDs showed a higher success rate (78%) compared with the mandibular (70.1%). No significant statistical difference in Alpha scores between female and male patients and between maxillary and mandibular RPDs (p