J Adv Prosthodont.  2012 May;4(2):109-115.

Complication rates and patient satisfaction with removable dentures

• Bilhan H
• Erdogan O
• Ergin S
• Celik M
• Ates G
• Geckili O

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the frequency and type of prosthetic complications in relation to type and properties of removable dentures and to investigate the influence of these complications and several data about the existing dentures on patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ninety nine patients (44 males and 55 females) wearing removable dentures have been included in the study. The complications of the patients were recorded; patient satisfaction was determined with a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the relationship of complications and patient satisfaction with several data about the dentures such as denture age, type of denture, centric relation and vertical dimension was investigated. Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney U and Chi square tests were used for statistical analyses. The results were evaluated statistically at a significance level of P<.05.
RESULTS
Need for addition of artificial teeth for dentures with correct centric relations was found to be significantly lower than dentures with wrong centric relations (P<.01). Loss of retention, ulcerations and high vertical dimension affected the VAS chewing ability scores negatively and ulcerations affected the VAS phonation scores negatively (P<.05).
CONCLUSION
Considering the results of this study, it can be concluded that loss of retention, ulcerations and high vertical dimension caused patient dissatisfaction. Additionally, dentures with wrong centric relations caused need for addition of artificial teeth.

Keyword

Complete denture; Patient satisfaction; Partial denture

MeSH Terms

Centric Relation
Denture, Complete
Denture, Partial
Humans
Male
Mastication
Patient Satisfaction
Phonation
Retention (Psychology)
Tooth, Artificial
Ulcer
Vertical Dimension

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Distribution of denture types (n = 64 for CD/CD, n = 21 for CD/RPD, n = 8 for RPD/CD, and n = 6 for RPD/RPD).

Reference

1. Petersen PE, Yamamoto T. Improving the oral health of older people: the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005. 33:81–92.

2. Felton DA. Edentulism and comorbid factors. J Prosthodont. 2009. 18:88–96.

3. Turkyilmaz I, Company AM, McGlumphy EA. Should edentulous patients be constrained to removable complete dentures? The use of dental implants to improve the quality of life for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2010. 27:3–10.

4. Grant AA, Heath JR, McCord JF. Complete prosthodontics: problems, diagnosis and management. 1994. 1st ed. Manchester: Mosby Inc.;33–115.

5. Basker RM, Davenport JC. Prosthetic treatment of the edentulous patient. 2002. 4th ed. Berlin: Wiley-Blackwell;71–80.

6. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Fenton AH, Jacob RF, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for Edentulous Patients: Complete Dentures and Implant-supported Prosthesis. 2004. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;268–329.

7. Devlin H. Complete dentures: A clinical manual for the general dental practitioner. 2002. Berlin: Springer;33–59.

8. Dorner S, Zeman F, Koller M, Lang R, Handel G, Behr M. Clinical performance of complete dentures: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2010. 23:410–417.

9. Langer A, Michman J, Seifert I. Factors influencing satisfaction with complete dentures in geriatric patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1961. 11:1019–1031.

10. Smith M. Measurement of personality traits and their relation to patient satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1976. 35:492–503.

11. Manne S, Mehra R. Accuracy of perceived treatment needs among geriatric denture wearers. Gerodontology. 1983. 2:67–71.

12. Magnusson T. Clinical judgement and patients' evaluation of complete dentures five years after treatment. A follow-up study. Swed Dent J. 1986. 10:29–35.

13. Salonen MA. Assessment of states of dentures and interest in implant-retained prosthetic treatment in 55-year-old edentulous Finns. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994. 22:130–135.

14. Bergman B, Carlsson GE. Review of 54 complete denture wearers. Patients' opinions 1 year after treatment. Acta Odontol Scand. 1972. 30:399–414.

15. Heyink J, Heezen J, Schaub R. Dentist and patient appraisal of complete dentures in a Dutch elderly population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986. 14:323–326.

16. van Waas MA. The influence of clinical variables on patients' satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:307–310.

17. van Waas MA. Determinants of dissatisfaction with dentures: a multiple regression analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:569–572.

18. Kalk W, de Baat C, Kaandorp A. Comparison of patients views and dentists evaluations 5 years after complete denture treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991. 19:213–216.

19. Firtell DN, Finzen FC, Holmes JB. The effect of clinical remount procedures on the comfort and success of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1987. 57:53–57.

20. Jennings DE. Treatment of the mandibular compromised ridge: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 61:575–579.

21. Jooste CH, Thomas CJ. The influence of the retromylohyoid extension on mandibular complete denture stability. Int J Prosthodont. 1992. 5:34–38.

22. Kalk W, van Waas MA, Engels SE. A comparison of different treatment strategies in patients with atrophic mandibles: a clinical evaluation after 6.5 years. Int J Prosthodont. 1992. 5:277–283.

23. Harper GW. Posterior base repair to maximize complete denture retention. Compendium. 1993. 14:454. 456. 458.

24. Sykora O, Sutow EJ. Posterior palatal seal adaptation: influence of processing technique, palate shape and immersion. J Oral Rehabil. 1993. 20:19–31.

25. Garrett NR, Kapur KK, Perez P. Effects of improvements of poorly fitting dentures and new dentures on patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:403–413.

26. Hummel SK, Wilson MA, Marker VA, Nunn ME. Quality of removable partial dentures worn by the adult U.S. population. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 88:37–43.

27. Douglass CW, Watson AJ. Future needs for fixed and removable partial dentures in the United States. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:9–14.

28. Inoue M, John MT, Tsukasaki H, Furuyama C, Baba K. Denture quality has a minimal effect on health-related quality of life in patients with removable dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2011. 38:818–826.

29. de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Tache′R , Boudrias P, Donohue WB, Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: psychometric evaluation. J Dent Res. 1994. 73:1096–1104.

30. Battistuzzi P, Ka¨yser A, Kanters N. Partial edentulism, prosthetic treatment and oral function in a Dutch population. J Oral Rehabil. 1987. 14:549–555.

31. Witter DJ, van Elteren P, Ka¨yser AF. Signs and symptoms of mandibular dysfunction in shortened dental arches. J Oral Rehabil. 1988. 15:413–420.

32. Wetherell JD, Smales RJ. Partial denture failures: a long-term clinical survey. J Dent. 1980. 8:333–340.

33. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO. Caries, periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal study. J Prosthet Dent. 1982. 48:506–514.

34. Rissin L, Feldman RS, Kapur KK, Chauncey HH. Six-year report of the periodontal health of fixed and removable partial denture abutment teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 54:461–467.

35. Drake CW, Beck JD. The oral status of elderly removable partial denture wearers. J Oral Rehabil. 1993. 20:53–60.

36. Saito M, Notani K, Miura Y, Kawasaki T. Complications and failures in removable partial dentures: a clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehabil. 2002. 29:627–633.

37. Vermeulen AH, Keltjens HM, van't Hof MA, Kayser AF. Ten-year evaluation of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on retreatment, not wearing and replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1996. 76:267–272.

38. Wagner B, Kern M. Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures. Clin Oral Investig. 2000. 4:74–80.

39. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. Impact of mandibular two-implant retained overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011. 53:233–236.

40. van Waas MA. The influence of psychologic factors on patient satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 63:545–548.

41. Hobkirk JA, Abdel-Latif HH, Howlett J, Welfare R, Moles DR. Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-supported complete mandibular dentures: a case-control study (part 1). Int J Prosthodont. 2008. 21:489–495.

42. Hobkirk JA, Abdel-Latif HH, Howlett J, Welfare R, Moles DR. Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-stabilized complete mandibular dentures: a case-control study (part 2). Int J Prosthodont. 2009. 22:13–19.

43. Sheppard IM, Schwartz LR, Sheppard SM. Oral status of edentulous and complete denture-wearing patients. J Am Dent Assoc. 1971. 83:614–620.

44. Carlsson GE, Persson G. Morphologic changes of the mandible after extraction and wearing of dentures. A longitudinal, clinical, and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. Odontol Revy. 1967. 18:27–54.

45. Dawson PE. Evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of occlusal problems. 1989. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby;41–46.

46. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 94:10–92.

47. Hobkirk JA. Loss of the vertical dimension of occlusion and its management implications. Int J Prosthodont. 2009. 22:520–521.

48. Jeganathan S, Payne JA. Common faults in complete dentures: a review. Quintessence Int. 1993. 24:483–487.

49. Yemm R. Analysis of patients referred over a period of five years to a teaching hospital consultant service in dental prosthetics. Br Dent J. 1985. 159:304–306.