Ethics in the provision of removable partial dentures

Aim: To investigate the construction of cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures by commercial private dental laboratories. Methods: Ninety master casts for fabrication of cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures were obtained from three commercial laboratories randomly selected. Casts were assessed for dental arch treated, Kennedy classification, cast surveying, denture design information provided by the dentist, and mouth preparation (rest seat, guiding plane and retentive area). Dental technicians answered a questionnaire regarding qualification of assisted dentists, monthly number of framework castings, and use of dental surveyor. Mouth preparation was compared among laboratories using Kruskal-Wallis test (α=0.05). Results: The percentage of Kennedy class I was 16%, class II 19%, class III 56%, and class IV 9%. The majority of master cats (51%) examined was sent to dental laboratories without any design information and did not comply with ethical guidelines in the provision of RPD. Approximately half of the casts were considered “inappropriate” for guiding planes and retentive areas. One of the laboratories presented all casts “inappropriate” for rest seat distribution (p<0.001). Conclusions: Mouth preparation frequently failed for guiding planes, retentive areas and distribution of rest seats. It is necessary to provide students with adequate clinical experience at the dental school environment, which will actually be carried into the practice of dentistry.

Ethics in the provision of removable partial dentures

Aim: To investigate the construction of cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures by commercial private dental laboratories. Methods: Ninety master casts for fabrication of cobalt-chromium removable partial dentures were obtained from three commercial laboratories randomly selected. Casts were assessed for dental arch treated, Kennedy classification, cast surveying, denture design information provided by the dentist, and mouth preparation (rest seat, guiding plane and retentive area). Dental technicians answered a questionnaire regarding qualification of assisted dentists, monthly number of framework castings, and use of dental surveyor. Mouth preparation was compared among laboratories using Kruskal-Wallis test (α=0.05). Results: The percentage of Kennedy class I was 16%, class II 19%, class III 56%, and class IV 9%. The majority of master cats (51%) examined was sent to dental laboratories without any design information and did not comply with ethical guidelines in the provision of RPD. Approximately half of the casts were considered “inappropriate” for guiding planes and retentive areas. One of the laboratories presented all casts “inappropriate” for rest seat distribution (p<0.001). Conclusions: Mouth preparation frequently failed for guiding planes, retentive areas and distribution of rest seats. It is necessary to provide students with adequate clinical experience at the dental school environment, which will actually be carried into the practice of dentistry.