Purpose An important consideration in the proper planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is the determination of sample size. A study may fail to answer its research question if the sample size is inadequate, while a large enough sample size may be impractical to implement. The purpose of this study is to describe the reporting of sample size methodology and parameters used in RCTs published in prosthodontic journals. Materials and Methods A MEDLINE search for publications categorized as RCTs was conducted for articles in The Journal of Prosthodontics and The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry published from 2008 to 2017. The Abstract and Methodology sections of RCTs identified were reviewed, and the following data recorded: reporting of method used to calculate sample size and reporting of parameters used for sample size calculation ‐ type I error (α), type II error (β) or power, minimal clinically relevant difference (MCRD), and variability. Results The search strategy retrieved 96 articles; 42 met inclusion criteria for RCTs and were reviewed. Fifty percent (21) of RCTs reported how sample size was determined, but only 17% (7) of RCTs reported all 4 parameters. Type I error (α) was reported in 90% (38) of RCTs, 38% (16) reported power, while only 26% (11) and 12% (5) reported MCRD and variability, respectively. Conclusion Methodology and parameters used for sample size determination are inadequately reported in RCTs published in prosthodontic journals.

Purpose Bias can occur in various phases of an investigation, and its control is an important measure of the validity of results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study is to determine if bias control in prosthodontic RCTs published from 2008 to 2017 improved over those published from 1988 to 1997. Materials and Methods MEDLINE was searched for RCTs in The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, and The Journal of Prosthodontics published from 2008 to 2017. Citations retrieved were included if the trial involved human subjects, included at least 2 treatment groups, and group assignment was by random allocation. Pilot and follow‐up studies were excluded. Included RCTs were evaluated on the basis of how control of potential sources of bias in trial methodology were reported. Three areas—control of bias at entry, control of bias in assessment of outcome, and control of bias after entry—were scored 1 or 0, based on whether method of randomization was explicitly reported, blinding was done, and all subjects were accounted for at the end of the study. Thus, the maximum quality score was 3 (good bias control) and the minimum 0 (poor bias control). Frequencies were calculated for each dimension of trial methodology, and overall scores were reported. Results were compared to those of RCTs published from 1988 to 1997 reported in a previous study. Results Ninety‐six RCTs published from 2008 to 2017 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Method of randomization was explicit in 68% of RCTs, 50% reported blinding, and 85% accounted for all subjects; 32% scored the maximum 3 points for good bias control. In comparison, 62 RCTs published from 1988 to 1997 had frequencies of 47%, 40%, and 76% in the 3 areas examined, respectively; only 16% had maximum scores for good bias control. Conclusion Control of bias and overall quality scores have improved for RCTs published in the 3 studied prosthodontic journals.

In complete denture fabrication, the definitive maxillary cast is mounted on an articulator using a facebow transfer or mounting jig, and the mandibular cast is mounted using an interocclusal record. The technique presented describes an easy and inexpensive method for fabrication of a mounting jig and rigid cast supports for mounting complete dentures.