Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques? A 10-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

Publication date: July 2018
Source:Journal of Dentistry, Volume 74
Author(s): Yasuhiko Kawai, Hiroshi Muarakami, Jocelyne S. Feine
ObjectivesThe use of a simplified method (S) of fabricating complete dentures has been shown to be more cost-efficient than the traditional method (T), and there are no negative consequences that detract from the cost savings in the short term. However, it is not clear whether this remains constant over a decade. The objective of this study was to clarify patients’ perspectives and determine any differences between the dentures fabricated with these two different techniques after a decade of use.Material and methodsEdentate individuals participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial and completed a 6-month follow-up from 2001 to 2003 (T group n = 50; S group n = 54). For this 10-year follow-up, they were interviewed by telephone. The assessment included whether the denture was still in use or replaced, the condition of the dentures, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Between and within-group differences and the factors that cause deterioration of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were determined.ResultsAmong 54 responders (25 T and 29 S), 14T and 21S kept the original dentures. Both groups were similar in ratings of satisfaction and OHRQoL (maxilla T: 80.0 S: 86.0, p = 0.36; mandibular; T: 66.1 S: 72.3, p = 0.48; OHRQoL T: 111.1 S: 108.5, p = 0.46). Irrespective of fabrication method, discomfort, chewing difficulty and esthetics were the factors that deteriorate OHRQoL (adjusted r = 0.76, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe results indicate that the simplified method remains more cost-efficient than the traditional method over a 10-year period.(IRB approval: A09-E71-12 B McGill University, trial registry: ClinicalTrial.org; NCT02289443)