Removable Prosthodontics
Complete denture fabrication methods
Background.—Many elderly patients choose to wear
conventional dentures when they lose their teeth, so these
prostheses will remain in demand for some time. The two
ways to prepare complete dentures are via the traditional
method and using a simplified approach. The traditional
method is more complex and time-consuming but is taught
in most dental schools. Most general dentists use simplified
techniques to reduce the number of visits and the time
required to make the prostheses. The efficacy and effective-
ness of simplified methods compared to traditional
methods were investigated in a systematic review.
Methods.—Traditional dentures are made by obtaining
an anatomic and functional impression, a semi-adjustable
articular with a facebow, wax evaluation, and an occlusal
adjustment in a semi-adjustable articulator. Simplified
methods eliminate any of these stages, so the ones used
varied among the studies included in the systematic re-
view. The articles were culled from the MEDLINE-
PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the ISI Web of Science
databases. In addition, a manual search was performed to
identify clinical trials comparing the outcomes for com-
plete dentures fabricated using a simplified or a traditional
approach. Overall, six articles documenting the findings of
three randomized controlled clinical trials were included.
Most analyzed general satisfaction, denture stability, chew-
ing ability and function, comfort, hygiene, esthetics,
speech function, quality of life, cost, and fabrication time
for the two methods.
Results.—The studies documented findings for individ-
uals age 45 to 85 years, with 101 patients treated with the
traditional method and 110 treated with simplified
methods. The main differences between the two treat-
ments involved the functional impression method, use of
a facebow or not, type of articulator, and remount. No sig-
nificant differences were noted between the two methods
with respect to overall satisfaction or denture quality. How-
ever, mean total cost for the traditional method was signif-
icantly greater than that for the simplified method, with the
simplified method’s direct cost 34.9% lower than the tradi-
tional method’s cost. Clinicians required 90 minutes longer
when the traditional method was used than when they used
a simplified method (284.5 minutes versus 173.2 minutes,
respectively). Overall, the simplified method was shown
to be more cost efficient than the traditional method but
produced no negative consequences.
Among the patient factors evaluated were ability to
speak, comfort, chewing ability, and ease of cleaning.
None of these differed significantly between the two
methods. The simplified method was able to yield dentures
whose quality was comparable to that produced using the
traditional method.
Discussion.—Few studies have compared the results of
traditional versus simplified methods of fabricating com-
plete dentures. The methods taught by dental schools
tend to include complex sequences of clinical and labora-
tory procedures, but evidence of patient satisfaction has
been lacking. Several simplified methods have been devel-
oped, and this study indicates that the quality and perfor-
mance of the dentures produced using these easier
methods are comparable to those of dentures produced
using traditional techniques. However, simplified methods
offer a shorter stay in the chair and a lower cost than tradi-
tional techniques, both of which are favored by patients.
Clinical Significance.—This study identified
a number of simplified methods for fabri-
cating complete dentures and showed that
the results are comparable to those achieved
with traditional methods. Additional random-
ized controlled trials that focus on similar
simplified methods using larger samples and
extending for a longer period of time would
help to clarify the validity of these findings.
Paulino MR, Alves LR, Gurgel BCV, et al: Simplified versus traditional
techniques for complete denture fabrication: A systematic review.
J Prosthet Dent 113:12-16, 2015
Reprints available from MR Paulino, Dept of Dentistry, Federal
Univ of Rio Grande do Norte, Avenida Senador Salgado Filho, 17
Natal, Rio Grande do Norte 59056-000, Brazil; e-mail:
marcilia.paulino@yahoo.com.br
Volume 60  Issue 3  2015 155