Patient-Reported Outcomes of Metal and Acrylic Resin Removable Partial Dentures : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Metal removable partial dentures (RPDs) are often considered long-term treatment options for partially edentulous patients, while acrylic resin RPDs are considered interim treatments. The aim of this review was to compare metal and acrylic resin RPDs regarding patient-reported outcomes for partially edentulous individuals. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes between metal and acrylic resin RPDs. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool (ROBINS-I) and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. The level of evidence was evaluated using Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine tool. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data. A total of 15 studies were included in the systematic review; 10 in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size for patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life showed no statistical significant difference between metal and acrylic resin dentures (0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.01, 0.45, p = 0.06; 1.45, 95% confidence interval -2.43, 5.33, p = 0.46, respectively). Compliance with using RPDs was significantly higher in patients with metal compared to patients with acrylic resin dentures (pooled odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.45, 0.73, p < 0.001). Most studies had critical to serious risk of bias and low level of evidence. The reviewed studies showed that there was no significant difference between metal and acrylic resin RPDs in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life. Metal dentures were associated with higher patient compliance rates and were preferred more by patients compared to acrylic resin dentures. However, the reviewed studies had low levels of evidence and therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to conclusively address the question of this review

Functional evaluation of oral rehabilitation with removable partial dentures after five years Avaliação funcional da reabilitação oral com prótese parcial removível após cinco anos

Most removable partial denture (RPD) wearers are satisfied with their prostheses, but the factors that influence satisfaction and acceptance are still not determined. OBJECTIVE: This study explored technical, biological, and satisfaction variables for the functioning of RPDs after five years, and compared the evaluation by the patient and by the clinician. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty adults (39 females, 11 males) were re-examined after five years of RPD service. Data were collected through clinical examination and a structured questionnaire to record the conditions of supporting soft tissues, prosthesis acceptance and technical characteristics, mastication, esthetics, comfort, hygiene, and need for professional intervention. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation. RESULTS: More than 50% of patients classified their RPDs as excellent regarding retention, mastication, esthetics, comfort, and hygiene. In the professional evaluation, retention and stability were considered excellent in more than 66% of cases, and hygiene of teeth and prostheses was considered good in 52% and 46%, respectively. The metallic framework and acrylic base were considered adapted in 92% of cases. Prosthesis acceptance was associated with retention, mastication, esthetics, hygiene, and comfort evaluated by the patient, and with retention, stability, and condition of the framework evaluated by the clinician. Retention and mastication/comfort evaluated by the patient had moderate positive correlation with retention and stability measured by the clinician. There was no association of hygiene evaluation by the patient and by the clinician. CONCLUSIONS: After five years, the oral rehabilitation with RPDs was satisfactory for most cases. There was correspondence between retention/retention and mastication-comfort/stability variables evaluated by the patient and by the clinician. Oral and prosthesis hygiene were not related.<br>A maioria dos usuários de PPR mostra-se satisfeita com suas próteses, porém os fatores que influenciam a satisfação e aceitação não estão determinados. OBJETIVO: Este estudo explorou variáveis técnicas, biológicas e de satisfação no funcionamento de próteses parciais removíveis (PPRs) após cinco anos de uso, comparando a avaliação do paciente e do cirurgião-dentista. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Cinqüenta adultos (39 mulheres, 11 homens) foram reexaminados após cinco anos da instalação de PPR. Através de exame clínico e questionário estruturado, foram coletados os dados relativos às condições dos tecidos de suporte, aceitação e características técnicas da PPR, mastigação, estética, conforto, higiene e necessidade de intervenção profissional. Os dados foram analisados por estatística descritiva e por correlação de Spearman. RESULTADOS: Mais de 50% dos pacientes classificaram suas próteses como excelente quanto à retenção, mastigação, estética, conforto e higiene. Na avaliação do profissional, retenção e estabilidade foram consideradas excelentes em mais de 66% dos pacientes, e a higiene dos dentes e da prótese foi considerada boa em 52% e 46% dos casos, respectivamente. As armações metálicas e bases acrílicas foram consideradas adaptadas em 92% dos casos. Aceitação da prótese foi associada com retenção, mastigação, estética, higiene e conforto avaliados pelo paciente, e com retenção, estabilidade e condição da armação metálica avaliadas pelo profissional. Retenção e mastigação/conforto, avaliados pelo paciente, mostraram correlação positiva moderada com retenção e estabilidade medidas pelo profissional. Não houve associação entre avaliação de higiene pelo paciente e pelo profissional. CONCLUSÕES: Após cinco anos, a reabilitação oral com PPR estava satisfatória na maioria dos casos. Houve correspondência entre as variáveis retenção/retenção e mastigação-conforto/estabilidade. Higiene oral e da prótese não mostraram associação

Water sorption and solubility of polyamide denture base materials

Purpose: Some patients experience adverse reactions to poly(methyl methacrylate)-based (PMMA) dentures. Polyamide (PA) as an alternative to PMMA has, however, not been well documented with regard to water sorption and water solubility. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure water sorption and water solubility of two PA materials compared with PMMA, and to evaluate the major components released from the PA materials and the effect on hardness of the materials. Methods: Ten discs (40.0 mm diameter, 2.0 mm thick) of each material (PA: Valplast and Breflex; PMMA: SR Ivocap HIP) were prepared according to manufacturers’ recommendations. The specimens were tested for water sorption and water solubility, according to a modification of ISO 20795-1:2008. Released substances were analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Results: There were statistically significant differences among the materials regarding water sorption, water solubility and time to water saturation. Breflex had the highest water sorption (30.4 μg/mm3), followed by PMMA-material (25.8 μg/mm3) and Valplast (13.6 μg/mm3). Both PA materials had statistically significant lower water solubility than the PMMA. Both PA had a net increase in weight. Analysis by GC/MS identified release of the compound 12-aminododecanolactam from the material Valplast. No release was found from the Breflex material. Conclusions: The PA denture materials show differences in water sorption and solubility, but within the limits of the standard requirements. The PA showed a net increase in weight after long-term water sorption. The clinical implications of the findings are not elucidated