References

Shaw MJ. Attachment retained overdentures: a report on their maintenance requirements. J Oral Rehabil. 1984; 11:373-379
Öwall B, Jönsson L. Precision attachment-retained removable partial dentures. Part 3. General practitioner results up to 2 years. Int J Prosthetics. 1998; 11:574-579
Öwall B. Precision attachment-retained removable partial dentures: Part 1. Technical long-term study. Int J Prosthodont. 1991; 4:249-257
Mensor MC. Attachment fixation of the overdenture: Part II. J Prosthetic Dent. 1978; 39:16-20
Studer SP, Mäder C, Stahel W, Schärer P. A retrospective study of combined fixed-removable reconstructions with their analysis of failures. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25:513-526
Vermeulen AH, Keltjens HM, 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; 76:267-272
Kerschbaum T, Mühlenbein F. [Longitudinal analysis of removable dentures in private insurance patients]. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1987; 42:352-357
Kratochvil FJ, Thompson WD, Caputo AA. Photoelastic analysis of stress patterns on teeth and bone with attachment retainers for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46:21-28
Shohet H. Relative magnitudes of stress on abutment teeth with different retainers. J Prosthet Dent. 1969; 21:267-282
Altay OT, Tsolka P, Preiskel HW. Abutment teeth with extracoronal attachments: the effects of splinting on tooth movement. Int J Prosthodont. 1990; 3:441-448
El Charkawi HG, el Wakad MT. Effect of splinting on load distribution of extracoronal attachment with distal extension prosthesis in vitro. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76:315-320
Burns DR, Ward JE. A review of attachments for removable partial denture design: Part 2. Treatment planning and attachment selection. Int J Prosthodont. 1990; 3:169-174
Mericske-Stern R. Overdentures with roots or implants for elderly patients: a comparison. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72:543-550

Precision attachments in partial removable prosthodontics: an update for the practitioner part 2

From Volume 41, Issue 9, November 2014 | Pages 785-795

Authors

Matthew BM Thomas

BDS(Hons), MFDS, MPhil, MRDRCS(Ed), FDS RCS(Eng), FDS RCS(Ed), FDTFEd

Specialist Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Cardiff University School of Dentistry, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK

Articles by Matthew BM Thomas

Gareth Williams

BDS, MJDF DipClinHyp, MOrth

Specialist Orthodontist, Total Orthodontics, Brighton

Articles by Gareth Williams

Liam D Addy

BDS, MFDS, MPhil, FDS(Rest Dent)

Specialist Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Cardiff University, Dental School, Wales College of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY

Articles by Liam D Addy

Abstract

The aims of this second paper are to address the general principles involved in treatment planning precision attachment-retained dentures, with careful consideration of the whole patient rather than just the intra-oral aspects of planning. These principles are illustrated with four cases. The literature on maintenance and complications is also discussed in this paper.

Clinical Relevance: Precision attachments are an option to increase retention in challenging prosthetic cases.

Article

Precision attachments potentially offer many advantages over conventional removable dentures. When these are used appropriately they can lead to increased patient satisfaction. There is also a vast number of different attachments available for use. This means that appropriateness has to be carefully assessed, not only by correct case selection, but also by clinical and technical experience, and patient compliance and dexterity.

Careful treatment planning is essential. Errors at this early stage may result in failure of the case. A clinical examination to assess for caries, periodontal disease, peri-apical disease, tooth surface loss, or infections of the oral mucosa should be completed. This should inform the clinician of the suitability of the mouth to receive complex restorations. In conjunction with this, it is fundamental that the patient is assessed as a whole as previous dental history and manual dexterity may impact on the decision process.

A patient's medical history can also influence the decision-making process. The construction of a precision attachment-retained denture is more time consuming than a conventional denture. Any component of the medical history that would preclude long appointment times may make this form of treatment an inappropriate choice. Owing to the very nature of their precise fit, patients would require sufficient manual dexterity to enable placement and removal of the prosthesis. For example, patients with severe arthritis affecting the hands, or neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease, may find the placement and removal too difficult, without assistance. These problems can be overcome with the use of magnet-retained overdentures, as they may prove easier to remove.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available