Efficiency of simplified versus traditional denture fabrication methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Conventional techniques (CTs) for complete denture fabrication involve a series of clinical and laboratory steps. A simplification of this process has been advocated, but whether simplified techniques result in acceptable treatment outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2021-09, Vol.126 (3), p.377-385
Main Authors: Sanjeevan, Vinita, Rajagopal, Praveen, Venkitachalam, Ramanarayanan, Aras, Meena
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dentistry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Conventional techniques (CTs) for complete denture fabrication involve a series of clinical and laboratory steps. A simplification of this process has been advocated, but whether simplified techniques result in acceptable treatment outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficiency of simplified denture fabrication techniques in comparison with CTs. The standard methodological procedures prescribed by the Cochrane Collaboration for systematic review and meta-analysis were used. An electronic search (MEDLINE through PubMed, Cochrane trial registry, and Scopus) and a manual search up to February 2020 were made to identify studies. Only randomized controlled trials involving edentulous adults requiring complete denture treatment were included. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of the included studies for patient satisfaction at 6 months marginally favored the simplified method of denture fabrication (standardized mean difference=0.02 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.22 to 0.27]). The pooled estimate of the included studies for clinical time and cost of fabrication favored the simplified method (mean difference=-77.34 [95% CI -122.45 to -32.24] and mean difference=-85.89 [95% CI -170.02 to -1.77] respectively). Simplified techniques were cost effective and less time consuming than the CT, with no significant difference in patient satisfaction or oral health-related quality of life. The high risk of bias and heterogeneity among studies requires that the results be considered cautiously.
ISSN:0022-3913
1097-6841
DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.003