The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 5 ( November, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Do Patients Have a Preference for Major Connector Designs?

Ranjith W. Pallegama, Sunphat Namano, Kumiko Aridome, Kazuyoshi Baba, Supaboon Purnaveja, Takashi Ohyama

Citation Information : Pallegama RW, Namano S, Aridome K, Baba K, Purnaveja S, Ohyama T. Do Patients Have a Preference for Major Connector Designs?. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (5):71-79.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-71

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2006

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this research was to evaluate patients. preferences for resin analogs of four major connector designs formulated to have equal rigidity once fabricated in the same alloy

Methods and Materials

Nineteen Kennedy Class I or II partially edentulous patients participated at two centers. The four major connector analogs (MCAs) were fabricated for each subject using light-polymerizing acrylic resin. The subjects were asked to wear each of them in the mouth for 30 seconds in six pairs in random order, and to report their preference for each pair. Based on these data, the four analogs were ranked in a descending preference order for each patient. Within-subject comparisons preferences were performed with the Friedman test, and the multiple comparisons were performed with the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for data of each sample independently.

Results

Statistically significant and consistent preference orders were revealed for both samples, and the thin and wide design was significantly preferred to the thick and narrow design. However, a higher variation was observed for the first preference of each subject.

Conclusions

Subjects demonstrated a tendency to prefer thinner MCAs. However, the individual predilections of patients may not be an appropriate basis for an attempt to find a .best design. applicable to all patients.

Citation

Pallegama RW, Namano S, Aridome K, Baba K, Purnaveja S, Ohyama T. Do Patients Have a Preference for Major Connector Designs? J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 November;(7)5:071-079.


PDF Share
  1. The effectiveness of palate-less versus complete palatal coverage dentures (a pilot study). Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000;8:63-66.
  2. Subjective reactions to major connector designs for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1977;37:507-516.
  3. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:242-245.
  4. , Bezzon OL. Esthetic options for the fabrication of removable partial dentures: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2001,86:465-467.
  5. Esthetic considerations with removable partial dentures. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003;31:551-557.
  6. The significance of major connectors and denture base mucosal contacts on the functional strain patterns of maxillary removable partial dentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1998;6:63-74.
  7. Retention of complete maxillary dentures as a result of changes in design. Acta Odontol Scand 1984;42:327-332.
  8. Effects on retention of reducing the palatal coverage of complete maxillary dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:77-83.
  9. Acceptance of full dentures. Int Dent J 1993;43:299-306.
  10. Measurement of personality traits and their relation to patient satisfaction with complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1976;35:492-503.
  11. Counseling and related factors influencing satisfaction with dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:259-267.
  12. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:117-122.
  13. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: choice of prosthesis. J Dent Res 1994;73:1105-1111.
  14. Within-subject comparison of maxillary long-bar implant-retained prostheses with and without palatal coverage: patient-based outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:555-565.
  15. Bending properties of strengthened Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy major connectors compared to Co-Cr alloy major connectors. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:267-273.
  16. Textbook of periodontia (Oral Medicine). 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Blakiston Co; 1950.
  17. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1996
  18. Can dental prostheses influence vocal parameters? J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:579-585.
  19. Speech sound distortions caused by changes in complete denture morphology. J Oral Rehabil 1985;12:69-79.
  20. A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: psychometric evaluation and patient preference. J Dent Res 1997;76:1675-1683.
  21. Patient preference for a mandibular complete denture with a broad or minimal base: a preliminary report. J Prosthet Dent 1970;23:525-528.
  22. Clinical comparison of two mandibular major connector designs: the sublingual bar and the lingual plate. J Prosthet Dent 1985,54:805-809.
  23. Studies on adaptation to complete dentures. Part I: Oral and manual motor ability. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:501-507.
  24. Oral stereognosis in edentulous subjects rehabilitated with complete removable dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:185-189.
  25. Studies on adaptation to complete dentures. Part II: Oral stereognosis and tactile sensibility. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:759-767.
  26. Strategies for complete denture success: beyond technical excellence. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001;22:553-559.
  27. Effects of patient involvement and esthetic preference on denture acceptance. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28:127-132.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.