International Journal of Medical Science and Pharmaceutical Research

Background: For patients who are partially edentulous, removable partial dentures RPDs are a crucial therapy option. Prosthesis material, retention, stability, occlusion, esthetics, and interaction with supporting oral tissues all have an impact on their clinical performance.

Objective: To compare and clinically assess the retention, stability, esthetics, occlusion, and tissue response of acrylic resin, flexible thermoplastic, and cobalt-chromium RPDs.

Materials and Methods: Thirty-seven acrylic resin, thirteen flexible thermoplastics and ten cobalt-chromium RPDs were among the sixty patients who received clinical examinations.

Retention and stability were graded as good, fair, or poor; esthetics and occlusion as acceptable or unacceptable; and tissue response as favorable or unfavorable. Frequencies and percentages were calculated. Comparisons among groups were performed using exact Monte Carlo testing based on the Pearson Chi-square statistic, with significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: 43.2% of acrylic, 76.9% of flexible, and 90.0% of cobalt-chromium RPDs showed good retention; with a significant difference (P = 0.043).

Good stability was recorded in 40.5%, 76.9%, and 90.0%, respectively with a significant difference (P = 0.027). 

Acceptable esthetics occurred in 83.8%, 92.3%, and 90.0% with a non-significant difference (P = 0.778).

Acceptable occlusion occurred in 64.9%, 76.9%, and 90.0% with a non-significant difference (P = 0.284). 

Favorable tissue response was observed in 51.4%, 76.9%, and 90.0%, respectively with a significant difference (P = 0.043).

Conclusion: Cobalt-chromium RPDs demonstrated the best favorable overall clinical performance particularly for retention, stability, and tissue response. Flexible RPDs also showed favorable results, whereas acrylic RPDs exhibited fewer favorable findings. Esthetic and occlusal differences were not statistically significant.

Removable partial denture, retention, stability, esthetics, occlusion, tissue response.

1. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJL, Marcenes W. Global burden of severe tooth loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(7 Suppl):20S-28S.
2. Gil-Montoya JA, de Mello ALF, Barrios R, Gonzalez-Moles MA, Bravo M. Oral health in the elderly patient and its impact on general well-being: a nonsystematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:461-467.
3. Furuyama C, Takaba M, Inukai M, Mulligan R, Igarashi Y, Baba K. Oral health-related quality of life in patients treated by implant-supported fixed dentures and removable partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(8):958-962.
4. Charyeva OO, Altynbekov KD, Nysanova BZ. Kennedy classification and treatment options: a study of partially edentulous patients being treated in a specialized prosthetic clinic. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(3):177-180.
5. Leles CR, Martins RR, Silva ET, Nunes MF. Discriminant analysis of patients' reasons for choosing or refusing treatments for partial edentulism. J Oral Rehabil. 2009;36(12):909-915.
6. Yeung ALP, Lo ECM, Clark RKF, Chow TW. Usage and status of cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures 5-6 years after placement. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(2):127-132.
7. Wilson VJ. Acrylic partial dentures—interim or permanent prostheses? SADJ. 2009;64(10):434, 436-438, 440.
8. Singh JP, Dhiman RK, Bedi RPS, Girish SH. Flexible denture base material: a viable alternative to conventional acrylic denture base material. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(4):313-317.
9. Sharma A, Shashidhara HS. A review: flexible removable partial dentures. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2014;13(12):58-62.
10. Hundal M, Madan R. Comparative clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures made of two different materials in Kennedy Applegate Class II partially edentulous situation. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71(Suppl 2):S306-S312.
11. Ito M, Wee AG, Miyamoto T, Kawai Y. The combination of a nylon and traditional partial removable dental prosthesis for improved esthetics: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(1):5-8.
12. Petridis H, Hempton TJ. Periodontal considerations in removable partial denture treatment: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(2):164-172.
13. Bergman B. Periodontal reactions related to removable partial dentures: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58(4):454-458.
14. Wagner B, Kern M. Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures. Clin Oral Investig. 2000;4(2):74-80.
15. Ahmed KE, Li H, Peres KG. Longevity of acrylic and cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures—A ten-year retrospective survival analysis of 1246 denture-wearing patients. J Dent. 2024;148:105253.
16. Almufleh B, Emami E, Alageel O, de Melo F, Seng F, Caron E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of metal and acrylic resin removable partial dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(5):378-386.
17. Shala KS, Dula LJ, Pustina-Krasniqi T, Bicaj T, Ahmedi EF, Lila-Krasniqi Z, et al. Patient's satisfaction with removable partial dentures: retrospective case series. Open Dent J. 2016;10:656-663.
18. Akeel R. Usage of removable partial dentures in Saudi male patients after 1 year telephone interview. Saudi Dent J. 2010;22(3):125-128.
19. Vermeulen AHBM, Keltjens HMAM, van't Hof MA, Kayser AF. Ten-year evaluation of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on retreatment, not wearing and replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(3):267-272.
20. Shams A, Tavanafar S, Dastjerdi MR, Chaijan KA. Patient satisfaction and complication rates after delivery of removable partial dentures: a 4-year retrospective study. SRM J Res Dent Sci. 2015;6(4):225-229.