Partial denture design comparisons between inexperienced and experienced undergraduate students and the teaching staff of a UK dental school.

Publisher: British Dental Journal Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 7513219 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1476-5373 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00070610 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Br Dent J Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: London : British Dental Journal
Original Publication: London.

Clinical Competence* ; Denture Design* ; Denture, Partial, Removable* ; Faculty, Dental* ; Students, Dental*; Dental Clasps ; Dental Occlusion ; Dental Technicians ; Denture Retention ; Education, Dental ; Humans ; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially/classification ; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially/rehabilitation ; Mandible/pathology ; Maxilla/pathology ; Models, Dental ; Patient Care Planning ; Prescriptions ; Prosthodontics/education ; Schools, Dental ; United Kingdom

This study aimed to assess the ability of inexperienced and experienced BDS students and teachers of removable partial denture (RPD) design, to prescribe/design RPDs for an identical partial denture case. Second and fourth/fifth year BDS students and experienced teachers of RPD design were selected to provide a treatment plan for a patient requiring RPDs using identical models. The designs produced were compared against a design produced by the authors before the study began. Not one design for the 100 participants matched the author's design. Under 30% of second year students surveyed the models before designing. Only a small percentage of the participants indicated the path of insertion and removal they had chosen and less than half the student groups and only 60% of the staff group provided clear, correct instructions to the technician. Large disagreements existed between the individuals within groups and between individual groups regarding the selection of component parts. There were wide differences in opinion among the undergraduate student groups as to which are the best design options for particular cases. Teachers of RPD design were found to be far from confident and have no consensus of opinion when designing RPDs.

Comment in: Br Dent J. 2011 Feb 26;210(4):149-50; author reply 150. (PMID: 21350510)

Date Created: 20100928 Date Completed: 20110325 Latest Revision: 20211203

20231215

10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.817

20871555