Comparison between Distal Extension Attachment-retained Removable Partial Prostheses with Integrated and Conventional Reciprocation Designs: A Clinical Trial

AIM

To compare marginal bone level (MBL) around the abutments in integrated and conventional reciprocation designs in attachment-retained removable partial prosthesis (A-RPP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Around 14 participants were indiscriminately selected and separated into two groups. For every group, an A-RPP with one of the studied reciprocation types was fabricated and assessed. Group I received A-RPP with integrated reciprocation and group II received A-RPP with conventional reciprocation. MBL around the crowned primary and secondary abutments was assessed on the day of A-RPP insertion, at 6 and at 9 months of denture use.

RESULTS

Comparison of MBL values at the primary and secondary abutments within each group showed no statistical difference from time of delivery and throughout the study. After using the A-RPP for 6 and 9 months, group I revealed lower mean values of MBL than group II which were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Distal extension A-RPP with integrated and conventional reciprocation designs were associated with raise in bone loss. Integrated reciprocation design revealed a lesser amount of bone loss than the conventional reciprocation design and therefore, it is considered as more preferable to be used.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Distal extension A-RPP with integrated reciprocation is superior in terms of periodontium preservation around abutment teeth as compared to distal extension A-RPD with conventional reciprocation.