Teaching Complete Denture Procedures to Dental Students by Conventional or Simplified Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

With populations aging around the world, the need for complete dentures is likely to increase in Brazil and other developing countries, as well among low‐income populations globally, making the teaching of cost‐efficient techniques to dental students essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of complete dentures fabricated by the simplified method in comparison to the conventional method regarding patients' oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) and satisfaction, dentures' functional quality, and masticatory performance of patients who were rehabilitated by dental students. From February 2016 to April 2017, final‐year dental students at the Federal University of Alfenas, Brazil, were instructed to fabricate new complete dentures for 36 edentulous patients, who were randomly divided into two groups according to denture manufacturing method: simplified method or conventional method. Patients' OHRQoL and satisfaction and the prostheses quality were evaluated at one, three, and six months. Masticatory performance was evaluated at three months. The results showed there was no significant difference between the two methods regarding OHRQoL, patient satisfaction, prostheses quality, or masticatory performance (p>0.05). All aspects evaluated also remained constant for the same group (simplified method or conventional method) in all periods of evaluation (p>0.05). The study concluded that the simplified method for complete denture fabrication was able to produce protheses with functional quality and patient satisfaction comparable to those produced with the conventional method, even when made by dental students.

A simplified technique for fabricating complete dentures for patients with Parkinson’s disease: a case report

“…This simplified technique was chosen as it involves less clinical sessions (Figure 2). [11][12][13] Adaptations were made to favor patient management and optimize clinical procedures while obtaining predictable results. The first modification involved making the upper and lower CD at separate times to take into account the difficulty controlling mouth movements experienced by the patient with PD.…”

“…Although the simplified technique is considered advantageous as it involves fewer clinical and laboratory sessions and reduces treatment costs, adequate rehabilitation using this technique requires technical accuracy and professional experience. 8,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Taking into account that the treatment provided satisfactory aesthetics and function, mastication and socialization benefits, and improved the self-esteem and wellbeing of the older patient with PD, the authors suggest this adapted and simplified CD fabrication technique.…”

“…A simplified technique was used to fabricate the upper CD (Figure 2). 8,[10][11][12][13][14] The preliminary impression was made with stock trays and fast-setting alginate (Cavex Holland BV, Netherlands) through traction movement of the perioral muscles (Figure 1B). The aesthetic and functional adjustment of the baseplate was performed during the second session, which reestablished lip support, occlusal rim height, and the buccal corridor (Figure 1C).…”

Domiciliary Denture Care- Challenges and the Way Forward

“…A preliminary alginate impression in a stock tray has been found to give acceptable results. Besides this, most of these techniques involve omission of facebow transfer, balanced occlusion, separate anterior and posterior denture try in and use mean value articulators instead of semi adjustable articulators 16 .…”

Comparative Evaluation of the Digital Workflow and Conventional Method in Manufacturing Complete Removal Prostheses

“…The conventional protocol for fabricating a mucosa-supported prosthesis involves a lengthy sequence of clinical and laboratory steps, which can result in a relatively long time period for completion. The polymerization shrinkage of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and the difficulty in duplicating the prosthesis in case of a need to revert to earlier manufacturing stages can be considered the main drawbacks of the technique [7][8][9][10][11].…”