The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of clinical status of removable partial dentures

가철성 국소의치의 임상적 상태에 대한 평가

  • Yang, Dong-Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Cho, Uk (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeon, Young-Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, Collage of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 양동석 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 조욱 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 정창모 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 전영찬 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 윤미정 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Published : 2009.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of Problem: Although many efforts have been continually made to estimate long term prognosis of removable partial dentures, the complication of removable partial dentures was still found because of inaccurate fabrication procedure and improper maintenance care. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical status of removable partial dentures. Material and methods: A total of 112 individuals with 153 removable partial dentures (35 - 87 years, 64 women and 48 men) were examined by intra-oral examination, diagnostic cast and radiographic examination. Results and conclusion: The results of this study were as follows: 1. Length of service of removable partial dentures was $5.3{\pm}4.3$ years (mean), 4.0 years (median). 2. A total of 45 removable partial dentures were considered failures. The loss of 18 abutments of 369 was founded. 3. Type of arch, Kennedy classification and type of opposite dentition were found to have no influence on longevity and success rate of removable partial dentures (P > .05). 4. Most common major connector was the palatal plate in maxilla and the number of lingual bar and linguoplate designed in mandible were similar. 5. The circumferential type retainer was the most commonly used retainer. 6. Sixty-three percent of the class I and II removable partial dentures incorporated indirect retention into the design. 7. Approximately 81% of the removable partial dentures had at least one defect. Excessive wear of posterior teeth (27.9%), lack of integrity (23.2%), lack of stability (22.6%) were frequent defects of removable partial dentures.

연구목적: 가철성 국소의치의 장기적 예후를 보증하고자 하는 많은 노력에도 불구하고, 부적절한 제작 및 유지관리로 인해 가철성 국소의치와 연관된 합병증은 여전히 관측되고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 가철성 국소의치의 임상적 상태를 조사하여 보철 진료의 임상적 참고자료와 후학연구의 기초자료로 도움이 되고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 2008년 1월에서 8월까지 부산대학교병원 치과 보철과에 내원한 환자 중 가철성 국소의치를 사용 중인 성인을 대상으로 가철성 국소의치와 지대치에 연관된 임상적 상태를 조사 평가하였다. 결과 및 결론: 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같았다. 1. 전체 가철성 국소의치의 추정수명은 4.0년이었고, 평균 장착 기간은 5.3년이었다. 2. 가철성 국소의치 성공, 실패 평가에서 45개의 보철물이 실패했으며. 전체 369개의 지대치 중 18개 (4.9%)의 지대치가 상실되었다. 3. 가철성 국소의치의 상, 하악 위치, Kennedy 분류, 대합치의 조건에 따른 추정 수명은 차이가 없었으며, 성공률과 실패율도 차이가 없었다 (P > .05). 4. 가철성 국소의치의 주연결장치는 상악에서 palatal plate 주연결장치 (55%)가 가장 많이 설계되었으며, 하악에서는 linguoplate 주연결장치 (52%), lingual bar 주연결장치 (45.3%) 순으로 조사되었다. 5. 가철성 국소의치의 직접유지장치는 circumferential type (74%), bar type (15%), 기타 (11%) 순으로 조사되었다. 6. 전체 140개의 I급과 II급 가철성 국소의치 중 63%의 보철물에 간접유지장치가 설계되어 있었다. 7. 보철물의 주된 결함은 과도한 구치부 인공치 마모 (27.9%), 보철물의 손상 (23.2%), 안정성의 부족 (22.6%) 순으로 발생하였으며, 전체 보철물의 81%가 최소한 1개의 결함을 가지고 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Christensen GJ. Making better removable partial dentures. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1041-4 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0282
  2. Academy of Prosthodontics. Principles, concepts, and practices in prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:73-94 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80276-8
  3. Vanzeveren C, D’Hoore W, Bercy P, Leloup G. Treatment with removable partial dentures: a longitudinal study. Part I. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:447-58 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01106.x
  4. Vanzeveren C, D’Hoore W, Bercy P, Leloup G. Treatment with removable partial dentures: a longitudinal study. Part II. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:459-69 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01107.x
  5. 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;76:267-72 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90170-5
  6. Kapur KK, Deupree R, Dent RJ, Hasse AL. A randomized clinical trial of two basic removable partial denture designs. Part I: Comparisons of five-year success rates and periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:268-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90340-9
  7. Redford M, Drury TF, Kingman A, Brown LJ. Denture use and the technical quality of dental prostheses among persons 18-74 years of age: United States, 1988-1991. J Dent Res 1996;75:714-25 https://doi.org/10.1177/002203459607502S11
  8. 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 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.126845
  9. Frank RP, Brudvik JS, Leroux B, Milgrom P, Hawkins N. Relationship between the standards of removable partial denture construction, clinical acceptability, and patient satisfaction. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:521-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70008-4
  10. Kim JC, Han SB. Periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients treated with removable partial dentures or distally extending cantilever bridges. J Korean Acad Periodontol 1993;23:635-45
  11. Ban YS, Song KB, Jeong SH, Jo KH. Analysis of satisfaction with removable dental prosthesis among patents in private dental clinics. J Korean Acad Dent Health 2001;25:79-94
  12. Leempoel PJ, Van’t Hof MA, de Haan AF. Survival studies of dental restorations: criteria, methods and analyses. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:387-94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01355.x
  13. Kratochvil FJ, Davidson PN, Guijt J. Five-year survey of treatment with removable partial dentures. Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:237-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90002-6
  14. Chandler JA, Brudvik JS. Clinical evaluation of patients eight to nine years after placement of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:736-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90366-4
  15. 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;48:506-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90352-3
  16. Schwalm CA, Smith DE, Erickson JD. A clinical study of patients 1 to 2 years after placement of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:380-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(77)90090-7
  17. Curtis DA, Curtis TA, Wagnild GW, Finzen FC. ncidence of various classes of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:664-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90167-9
  18. Owall BE, Taylor RL. A survey of dentitions and removable partial dentures constructed for patients in North America. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:465-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90016-4