Author Follow up period (Years) 5 and10 Dropout Final Rate Sample (%) Size 27.

8 748

Outcome Failure Criteria

Survival Rate (%)

Conclusion Authors Quotation

Vermeulen et al., 1996

a. Abutment retreatment b. Denture base adjustments c. RPD fracture

Wagner and Kern, 2000

10

49.7

74

a. Hygienic and material related problems b. Technical problems of denture

(1) 1. 40% (5yrs.) 20% (10yrs.) 2. 75% (5yrs.) 50% (10yrs.) 3. 85% (5yrs.) 64% (10yrs.) (2) 1. 70% (5yrs.) 41% (10yrs.) 2. 68% (5yrs.) 44% (10yrs.) 3. 84% (5yrs.) 60% (10yrs.) a. 36.1% b. 36.1% Overall (1) 33.3 (2) 66.7 (3) 44.8

With a simple RPD design and regular surveillance of the patient in a recall system with an individually adjusted interval, the results of RPD treatment will ensure predictability.

Although the prosthesis were unsupervised in service, the 60% 10 yearsuccess rate of the dentures was relatively highIn addition, the clinical outcome of our study shows the combined use of clasps and conical crowns in a single prosthesis can be used with a reasonable clinical success rate of 55% over 10 years of

Wethrell and Smales, 1980

25.5

64

a. Replaced b. Could not be worn c. Pain and discomfort

(1) 9% (2) 18% (3) 56%

Shugars et al., 2008

4.2, 7, and 13.5

N/A

1.52 with 67 BES 2.317 with 322 BES 3.117 with 180 BES

Extraction of at least one 1.83% (4.2Yrs) of the adjacent teeth of the 2.78% (7.0 Yrs) BES 3.80% (13.5 Yrs)

Jepson, N.J.A., et al., 2001

17

50

a. Incidence of new caries, 1. 65% recurrent caries, and tooth 2. 93% fracture b. Incidence of new caries, recurrent caries, and tooth fracture

clinical service. There is a need for more stringent examination and selection of patients for partial dentures. There must be written instructions given on oral and denture care, and arrangements made for regular recalls. The biological consequences of wearing partial dentures must be fully explained to patients. Conventional wisdom suggests that a posterior BES should be restored to prevent the subsequent loss of additional teeth. Surprisingly, the results of this study did not support this assumption. Two years after restoration of lower shortened dental arches for an elderly sample of patients, there was a significantly greater incidence of new and recurrent caries lesions in subjects restored with RPDs compared with cantilever RBBs.

Hofmann et 7 al. 2002

N/A

120

a. Loss of cementation b. Failure of facing c. Fracture of metal framework d. Loss of artificial tooth e. Fracture of clasp

(1) 80% (2) 50% (3) 67%

Thomason at al.2007

30

21

a. Worn by participant but 1. 100% requires minor adjustment 2. 62% or repair 3. 67% b. Denture intact but never worn by participant c. Unrepairable fracture or distortion, unusable following tooth loss

Clasp-retained RPDs had less frequent technical failures than double crown systems, but the fracture of a clasp was a cost intensive event. The most frequent complication of double crown systems shown loss of cementation was easily reparable and did not limit the survival time of the denture. The other failures occurred independently of the chosen retainer system and did affect the metal framework and the artificial teeth. In a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of cantilever resin-bonded fixed bridge and removable partial dentures in restoring shortened lower dental arches of elderly persons, there was no significant difference in survival rates of both treatments.

Grundstro m et al, 2001

34.2

208

a. Clasp fracture b. Framework fracture c. Fracture in acrylic base material d. Loosened artificial teeth e. Relinings or rebasings f. Loss of teeth requiring new RPD

1. 59% (Mx.) 2. 67% (Md.) RPDs that replaced at least one front tooth: 1. 57% (Mx.) 2. 48% (Md.)

Kapur KK, Deupree R, Dent RJ, Hasse AL, 1994

18.9 (15 99 people from Ibar and 8 from circumf erential)

a. Loss of Abutment b. Abutment tooth mobility >3 c. Rejection of RPD by patient d. Non-use of RPD by patient for mastication

75.4%

The importance of good maintenance care for the long-term result with RPDs has been emphasized. However, in the present material, most RPD-patients did not attend regular check-ups and did not participate in any special RPD maintenance programme. It seems that if supplementary treatment was performed, it was done as a consequence of complications and seldom for preventive reasons. The results indicate that the two designs do not differ significantly in terms of success rates, maintenance care, and effects on abutment teeth.