Awareness of Removable Prosthodontics on Clinical Experience of Dental Students - A Survey
Mohamed Noufal.Z1, Venkatesh2*, Archana3
1 Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamilnadu, India.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Dental College And Hospitals, Saveetha Institute Of Medical And Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamilnadu, India.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Pathology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences Saveetha University, Chennai-600077, Tamilnadu, India.
*Corresponding Author
Dr.Venkatesh,
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Dental College And Hospitals, Saveetha Institute Of Medical And Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai-
600077, Tamilnadu, India.
E-mail: venkatesh.sdc@saveetha.com
Received: October 28, 2019; Accepted: November 24, 2019; Published: November 28, 2019
Citation: Mohamed Noufal.Z, Venkatesh, Archana. Awareness of Removable Prosthodontics on Clinical Experience of Dental Students - A Survey. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2019;S5:02:0018:100-106. doi: dx.doi.org/10.19070/2377-8075-SI02-050018
Copyright: Venkatesh© 2019. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
A survey was conducted in saveetha dental college among clinical students. This survey was based on to find what are the
difficulties the students are undergoing, and what are their preference of Prosthodontic treatment. Also to find their opinions
on removable prosthodontics. The aim of the study is to estimate a survey of the removable prosthodontics clinical experience
of dental students. A cross sectional study was conducted. This survey was questionnaire based. The sampling technique
used was convenience sampling. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. The independent Chi square test
was performed to compare the variables, also chi square test was performed to find the mean for each question. Pre tested
self administered questions were used as study instruments. From the questions asked, majority of the study population
were aware on removable prosthodontics. 48% of the responded study population are Intern. 50% of the responded study
population has better knowledge of prosthodontics. 73% of the responded study population has knowledge on removable
prosthodontics. 34% of the study population are confident in performing RPD. And more than half of the study population
(67%) are confident in performing implants.
Conclusion: From the study we can conclude that over 75% of the clinical dental students are well aware and have a likelihood
towards the removable prosthodontics. But still they need more educational assessments on RPDs to further have confidence
in performing the procedure. Also 25% are aware of RPDs but not sufficient knowledge, still there need to be some
add on importance for RPDs in graduation curriculum and education curriculum.
2.Introduction
3.Materials and Methods
4.Results and Discussion
5.Conclusion
6.Author Contribution
7.Acknowledgements
8.References
Keywords
Fixed Prosthodontics; Implants; Prosthodontics; Removable Prosthodontics.
Introduction
Prosthodontics is one of the twelve dental specialities, which is
recognised by the american dental association (ADA) [8, 2]. ADA
defines prosthodontics as “the dental speciality pertaining to the
diagnosis, treatment planning, rehabilitation and maintenance of
the oral function, comfort, appearance [7, 21] and health of patients
with ethics associated with missing or deficient teeth or oral
and maxillofacial tissues using biocompatible substitutes [15]. Removable
prosthodontics is one of the procedures that are associated
with Prosthodontics [5, 19]. Removable prosthodontics(RPDs)
is concerned with replacing the teeth and soft tissue with a nonpermanent
prosthesis, which can be removed [9, 10]. RPD is
one of the implant methods in dentistry [18, 14]. Also removable
prosthodontics are most preferred when compared to fixed
prosthodontics in case of patients losing more than one tooth, it
is due to the cost consumption where removable prosthodontics
are cheaper compared to the fixed Prosthodontics [11, 16]. Basically
this survey was conducted to compare, find and assume how
the clinical dental students are managing the problems and what
they require on their aspects in consideration of the removable
Prosthodontics [17, 4].
Materials and Methods
A cross sectional study was conducted among dental students in saveetha dental college. The institutional ethical committee approved
the study. The study sample size of approximately 100.
The sample technique used was convenience sampling. After
obtaining ethical clearance, permission to conduct a survey was
obtained from the university. To maintain liable privacy of act,
we ensured not to get information on names or contact information.
This study was conducted with all clinical students in the
university, to get an versitail result. A pre tested, self administered
questionnaire was used as the study instrument, it was developed
from the help of pre published literature.
The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software.
The independent t test was performed to compare the variables.
The data collection is done in google forms, the collected data
has been uploaded into MS excel sheets or google sheets and the
responses are converted into scoring. A p value of <0.05 was
considered as statistically significant. A chi square test is done to
estimate the mean p value. (p)=0.01-p<0.05.
Questions:
1. Do you have better knowledge of prosthodontics?
2. Are you aware of removable prosthodontics?
3. Are you an experienced clinical practitioner?
4. Have you done removable prosthodontics before?
5. How confident do you feel when performing removable prosthodontics
on patients?
6. How frequently do you attend patients with removable prosthodontics?
7. Do you recommend giving more importance for teaching RPDs in graduation curriculum when compared to other techniques?
8. Do you find difficulty in explaining procedures for RPDs to
patients?
9. Do you find difficulty in convincing patients to undergo RPDs
Procedure?
10. Do you find difficulty in handling removable prosthodontics
patients?
11. Are you confident enough in restoring implants?
12. What is your most preferred choice of restorative implants?
Results and Discussion
In the study, 58% of the responded study population are male,
and 42% are female. [Figure:1]. The clinical students are grouped
into 3 different groups, as BDS (3rd-4th year), Intern and PGs.
From the 100 study population 36% responded study population
BDS, 48% responded study population are Intern, 16% responded
study population are PGs. [Figure:2]
50% of the study population responded- Yes for having better
knowledge of prosthodontics (p) = 0.01-0.846<0.05 statistically
significant [Figure:3]. 73% of the study population responded-
Yes are aware of removable prosthodontics, (p)= 0.01-0.587<0.05
statistically significant [Figure:4]. 69% of the study population
responded- Yes for experienced clinical practitioners, (p)= 0.01-
0.402<0.05 statistically significant [Figure:5]. 73% of the study
population responded- Yes that they have done removable prosthodontics
before, (p)= 0.01-0.519<0.05 statistically significant
[Figure:6]. 34% of the study population responded- Confident
in performing removable prosthodontics on patients, (p)= 0.01-0.354<0.05 statistically significant [Figure:7]. 30% of the study
population responded- Neutral for frequency of attending patients
with removable prosthodontics, (p)= 0.01-0.165<0.05 statistically
significant [Figure:8]. 64% of the study population responded-
Yes for giving importance in teaching removable prosthodontics
in graduation than other techniques, (p)=0.01-0.601<0.05 statistically
significant [Figure:9]. 68% of the study population responded-
Yes in finding difficulty in explaining procedure for removable
prosthodontics to patients, (p)=0.01-0.516<0.05 statistically significant
[Figure:10]. 73% of the study population responded- Yes
in finding difficulty in convincing patients to undergo removable
prosthodontics procedure, (p)=0.01-0.713<0.05 statistically significant
[Figure:11]. 73% of the study population responded- Yes
in finding difficulty in handling removable prosthodontics patients,
(p)= 0.01-0.510<0.05 statistically significant [Figure:12].
33% of the study population responded- Yes, confident enough
in restoring implants, (p)=0.01-0.187<0.05 statistically significant
[Figure:13]. 70% of the study population responded- RPD
as their most preferred choice of restorative implants, (p)=0.01-
0.730<0.05 statistically significant [Figure:14]
Figure 1. This Bar graph is showing percentage distribution for Gender. X-axis represents Different gender and Y-axis represents the percentage. 58% of the responded study population are Male and 42% of the responded study population are Females.
Figure 2. This Bar graph is showing percentage distribution for Year of study. X-axis represents Year of study and Y-axis represents Percentage. 36% of responded study population are 3rd-4th year, 48% responded study population are Intern and 16% responded population are PGs.
Figure 3. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution of having better knowledge of prosthodontics. Blue denotes Yes and Red denotes No. 50%(Blue) has responded Yes and 50(Red) has responded No.
Figure 4. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for awareness on removable prosthodontics. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 73%(blue) has responded Yes and 27%(red) has responded No.
Figure 5. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution on experienced clinical practitioners. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 69%(blue) has responded Yes, 31%(red) has responded NO.
Figure 6. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution done on removable prosthodontics before. Blue denotes Yes and Red denotes No. 27%(blue) has responded Yes and 73%(red) has responded No.
Figure 7. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for confidence in performing RPDs on patients. Blue denotes very confident, Red denotes confident, Green denotes neutral, Orange denotes unconfident and Yellow denotes very unconfident. 8%(blue) has responded very confident, 34%(red) has responded confident, 23%(green) has responded Neutral, 30%(orange) has responded unconfident and 5%(yellow) has responded very unconfident.
Figure 8. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for frequency of attending patients with RPDs. Blue denotes very frequent, Red denotes frequent, Green denotes Neutral, Orange denotes not frequent and Yellow denotes not at all. 11%(blue) has responded Very frequent, 20(red) has responded frequent, 30%(green) has responded neutral, 32%(orange) has responded not frequent and 7%(yellow) has responded not at all.
Figure 9. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for recommending RPDs in graduation curriculum compared to other techniques. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 36%(blue) has responded No and 64%(red) has responded Yes.
Figure 10. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for finding difficulty in explaining RPDs to patients. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 32%(blue) has responded No and 68%(red) has responded Yes.
Figure 11. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution for finding difficulty in convincing patients to undergo RPDs procedure. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 27%(blue) has responded No and 73%(red) has responded Yes.
Figure 12. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution on finding difficulty in doing RPDs in patients. Blue denotes No and Red denotes Yes. 28%(blue) has responded NO and 72%(red) has responded Yes.
Figure 13. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution of confident enough is doing restorative procedures. Blue denotes Yes and Red denotes No. 33%(blue) has responded Yes and 67%(red) has responded No.
Figure 14. This pie chart represents the percentage distribution of most preferred choice of restorative implants. Blue denotes Cpd and Red denotes Rpd. 30%(blue) has responded Cpd and 70%(red) has responded Rpd.
Figure 15. Bar graph representing association between year of study and knowledge of removable prosthodontics. X-axis represents year of study and Y-axis represents no.of study population. Blue denotes Yes and Green denotes No. Association between year of study and knowledge on prosthodontics was done using chi square test; p=0.033 < 0.05 and indicating statistically significant. 50% of study population from 3rd-4th are aware, 55% of study population from Intern are aware and 45% of study population from PGs are aware.
Figure 16. Bar graph representing association between year of study and knowledge on removable prosthodontics. X-axis represents year of study and Y-axis represents No.of study population. Blue denotes No and Green denotes Yes. Association between years of study and knowledge on removable prosthodontics was done using chi square test; p=0.036 < 0.05 indicating statistically significant. 75% of study population from 3rd-4th year are aware of RPDs, 75% of study population from Intern are aware of RPDs and 60% of study population from PGs are aware of RPDs.
Figure 17. Bar graph representing association between year of study and confident in performing implants. X-axis represents year of study and Y-axis represents no.of study population. Blue denotes Yes and Green denotes No. Association between year of study and confidence in performing implants was done using chi square test; p=0.187 > 0.05 indicating statistically insignificance. 60% of study population from 3rd-4th year are not confident, 80% of study population from Intern are not confident and 85% of study population from PGs are not confident.
Figure 18. Bar graph representing association between year of study and preferred choice of implant. X-axis represents year of study and Y-axis represents No.of study population. Blue denotes Rpd and Green denotes Cpd. Association between years of study and preferred choice of implant was done using chi square test; p=0.047 < 0.05 indicating statistically significant. 75% of study population from 3rd-4th year are preferring Rpd, 80% of study population from Intern are preferring Rpd and 60% of study population from PGs are preferring Rpd.
Removable prosthodontics is one of the major procedures in the field of prosthodontics, as well in the field of dentistry [3, 6]. Comparatively with fixed prosthodontics, removable prosthodontics are cheaper [20, 1]. Removable prosthodontics are considered as the most common implant in dentistry [12]. Most of the dental practitioners yet follow the removable prosthodontics, from the study we can consider 70% of the study population have answered RPD for their preferred choice of implant [8]. And even 70% of the study population responded that they are aware of the removable prosthodontics. Also 34% of the study population are confident enough in performing removable Prosthodontics [13]. There are also 2 more similar studies to be found which are in agreement with this study. From those two studies more than 50% of the responses are the same compared with this current study.
Limitation
A limited number of study populations. Need to consider other
universities clinical students' experience. Need to consider the
number of outpatient counts. Need to consider graduated dental practitioner opinions. Some have responded inappropriately.
Future Scope
In future there will be a lot more importance for RPDs procedures,
they will be given more importance in the graduation curriculum.
These are basic implant techniques which will be taught
in future generations. There is an importance for implants in dental
curriculum.
Conclusion
From the study we can conclude that over 75% of the clinical
dental students are well aware and have a likelihood towards the
removable prosthodontics. But still they need more educational
assessments on RPDs to further have confidence in performing
the procedure.
Also 25% are aware of RPDs but not sufficient knowledge, still
there need to be some add on importance for RPDs in graduation curriculum and education curriculum.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Saveetha Dental College for providing
a platform to express our knowledge.
References
- Ajay R, Suma K, Ali SA, Kumar Sivakumar JS, Rakshagan V, Devaki V, et al. Effect of Surface Modifications on the Retention of Cement-retained Implant Crowns under Fatigue Loads: An In vitro Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2017 Nov; 9(Suppl 1): S154-S160. PMID: 29284956.
- Jain AR, Nallaswamy D, Ariga P, Ganapathy DM. Determination of correlation of width of maxillary anterior teeth using extraoral and intraoral factors in Indian population: A systematic review. World J Dent. 2018 Jan; 9: 68-75.
- Ashok V, Nallaswamy D, Benazir Begum S, Nesappan T. Lip Bumper Prosthesis for an Acromegaly Patient: A Clinical Report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014 Dec; 14(Suppl 1): 279-82. PMID: 26199531.
- Ashok V, Suvitha S. Awareness of all ceramic restoration in rural population. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(10): 1691-3.
- Barsby M. Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Primary Dental Care. 2010; 122–122.
- Basha FY, Ganapathy D, Venugopalan S. Oral Hygiene Status among Pregnant Women. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(7): 3099-102.
- Carr AB, Brown DT. Considerations for the use of dental implants with removable partial dentures. McCracken’s Removable Partial Prosthodontics. 2010: 338-45.
- oates AJ, Moore KR, Richards LC. Removable prosthodontics: a survey of practices and attitudes among South Australian dentists. Aust Dent J. 1996 Jun; 41(3): 151-8. PMID: 8768636.
- Driscoll CF. Stewart's Clinical Removable Partial Prosthodontics. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2003 Dec; 12(4): 337-337.
- Duraisamy R, Krishnan CS, Ramasubramanian H, Sampathkumar J, Mariappan S, Navarasampatti Sivaprakasam A. Compatibility of Nonoriginal Abutments With Implants: Evaluation of Microgap at the Implant-Abutment Interface, With Original and Nonoriginal Abutments. Implant Dent. 2019 Jun; 28(3): 289-295. PMID: 31124826.
- Ganapathy D, Sathyamoorthy A, Ranganathan H, Murthykumar K. Effect of Resin Bonded Luting Agents Influencing Marginal Discrepancy in All Ceramic Complete Veneer Crowns. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Dec; 10(12): ZC67-ZC70. PMID: 28209008.
- Kannan A. Effect of Coated Surfaces influencing Screw Loosening in Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World. 2017 Nov; 8(6): 496-502.
- Herring HW, Stephens AP. A survey of the removable prosthodontic clinical experience of dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 1982 Aug; 48(2): 198-201. PMID: 7050364.
- Ranganathan H, Ganapathy DM, Jain AR. Cervical and Incisal Marginal Discrepancy in Ceramic Laminate Veneering Materials: A SEM Analysis. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017 Apr-Jun; 8(2): 272-278. PMID: 28839415.
- Jyothi S, Robin PK, Ganapathy D. Periodontal health status of three different groups wearing temporary partial denture. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2017; 10(12): 4339-42.
- Kannan A, Venugopalan S. A systematic review on the effect of use of impregnated retraction cords on gingiva. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2018; 11(5): 2121-6.
- Petropoulos VC, Rashedi B. Removable partial denture education in U.S. dental schools. J Prosthodont. 2006 Jan-Feb; 15(1): 62-8. PMID: 16433654.
- Selvan SR, Ganapathy D. Efficacy of fifth generation cephalosporins against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-A review. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(10): 1815-8.
- Subasree S, Murthykumar K. Effect of Aloe Vera in Oral Health-A Review. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(5): 609-12.
- Venugopalan S, Ariga P, Aggarwal P, Viswanath A. Magnetically retained silicone facial prosthesis. Niger J Clin Pract. 2014 Mar-Apr; 17(2): 260-4. PMID: 24553044.
- Vijayalakshmi B, Ganapathy D. Medical management of cellulitis. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2016; 9(11): 2067-70.