We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics



Forgotten password?


Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 5     8. Oct. 2018
Int J Prosthodont 31 (2018), No. 5  (08.10.2018)

Page 485-491, doi:10.11607/ijp.5661, PubMed:30180237

The Perceptions of Dentists Working in Saudi Arabia of the Utility of Different Restoration Options for a Shortened Dental Arch in Patients of Different Ages
Nassani, Mohammad Zakaria / Kay, Elizabeth Jane / Ibraheem, Shukran / Alanazi, Saleh Judaia / Darwish, Mahmoud
Purpose: This study aimed to assess dentists' views of the utility of an unrestored shortened dental arch (SDA) compared to the utility of various prosthetic treatment options.
Materials and Methods: A total of 142 dentists working at four sites in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were interviewed and presented with 18 scenarios for patients of different ages with SDAs that lost molar teeth. Participants were asked to indicate on a standardized visual analog scale (VAS) how they would value the health of the patient's mouth if the SDAs were left unrestored or restored with five prosthetic dental restorations.
Results: With a utility value of 0.0 representing the worst possible health state for a mouth and 1.0 representing the best, dentists' mean utility value for unrestored SDAs was 0.43 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.28). For implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs), cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures (RPDs), acrylic RPDs, cantilever conventional fixed dental prostheses (CFDPs), and cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs), the mean utility values were 0.64 (SD = 0.27), 0.54 (SD = 0.20), 0.48 (SD = 0.20), 0.42 (SD = 0.28), and 0.39 (SD = 0.27), respectively. Neither patient age nor dentists' clinical experience had an impact on dentists' perceptions of the utility of unrestored SDAs and outcomes of this treatment concept (P > .01).
Conclusion: Restoration of SDAs by ISFDPs received the highest utility value among the surveyed group of dentists. Although the assigned value for unrestored SDAs was low, this value was comparable to the value of SDAs that were restored by acrylic RPDs or cantilever FDPs of either type.