Incidence of partial edentulism and its relation with age and gender

Hoshang Khalid Abdel-Rahman; Chiman Dhahir Tahir; Mahabad Mahmud Saleh

doi:10.15218/zjms.2013.0033

Authors

Hoshang Khalid Abdel-Rahman Department of Prosthodontics , College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
Chiman Dhahir Tahir Department of Prosthodontics , College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
Mahabad Mahmud Saleh Department of Prosthodontics , College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2013.0033

Keywords:

Edentulism, age, gender

Abstract

Background and objective: This study aimed to determine the incidence of various partial edentoulism according to Kennedy’s classification of edentulous arches, modification areas, types of removable partial dentures (RPDs), selection of major connectors for RPDs and patterns of tooth loss in relation to the gender and age.

Methods: The study was conducted in Hawler Medical University, College of Dentistry, Dep. of Prosthodontics, Erbil/Iraq. The data were collected from 963 patients aged 17-80 years of both genders. The survey was based on visual examination for determining the incidence of Kennedy’s classification, modification areas in relation to the age and gender, determining the cause of tooth loss and types of major connectors for RPDs.

Results: Kennedy’s class III in both dental arches was the most dominant pattern at a frequency of 49.84%, with class IV being the least in number. Mandibular RPDs were more common than maxillary RPDs. With an increase in age, there was an increase in the Class I and Class II dental arch and a decrease in Class III and class IV in both arches. Gender had no significant relationship with distributions of RPD classification.The majority of the constructed RPDs were acrylic resin 881(91.49%) and only 82 (8.51%) were metal.

Conclusion: Kennedy’s class III is the most common RPD in both dental arches. Gender had no effect on the prevalence of various Kennedy classes, while age has a significant effect.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Kaimenyi JT, Sachdera P, Patel S .Causes of tooth mortality at the dental hospital unit of Kenyatta national hospital, Kenya. J.Odonto-Stomatogie tropicale, 1988; 1: 17-20.

Sadiq WM, Idowu AT . Removable partial denture design: A study of a selected population in Saudi Arabia. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract.2002; 3(4): 040-053.

Brodeur JM, Benigeri M, Naccache H, Olivier M, Payette M: Trends in the level of Edentulism in Quebec between 1980 and 1993. J Can Dent Assoc1996; 62(2):159-160. 162–66.

Curtis DA, Curtis TA, Wagnild GW, Finzen FC. Incidence of various classes of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 664-667.

Carr AB, McGivney GP, Brown DT. McCracken’s removable partial Prosthodontics. 11 ed. Elsevier Mosby.2005:p 20.

Esan AT, Olusile AO, Akeredolu AP, Esan OA. Sociodemographic factors and edentulism in Nigeria. BMC Oral Health 2004, 4:3.

Nallaswamy D .Textbook of Prosthodontic. Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms. 1st ed Jaypee, India.2007,p 745-829.

Temitope AE, Adeyemi OO, Patricia AA, et. al. Sociodemographic factors and edentulism: the Nigerian experience. BMC Oral Health 2004:33-36.

AL-Dwairi ZN. Partial edentulism and removable denture construction: a frequency study in Jordanians. Eur J Prosthodon Restor Dent. 2006;14(1):13-17

Hoover JN, McDermott RE. Edentulousness in patients attending a university dental clinic. J Can Dent Assoc 1989;55(2):139-40

Ohkubo C, Abe M, Miyata T, Obana J. Comparative strengths of metal framework structures for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent.1997; 78: 302-308.

Campbell LD. Subjective reactions to major connector designs for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent.1997; 37: 507-516.

LaVere AM, Krol AJ. Selection of a major connector for the extension-base removable partial denture. J Prosthet Dent.1973; 30: 102-105.

Wagner AG, Traweek FC. Comparison of major connectors for removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent.1982; 47: 242-244.

Fisher RL. Factors that influence the base stability of mandibular distal-extension removable partial dentures: A longitudinal study. J Prosthet Dent.1983; 50: 167-171.

Zaigham A, Muneer MU.pattern of partial edentulism and its association with age and gender.pakistan oral and dental J 2010; 30(1):260-263

Naveed H, Aziz M S, Hassan A, Khan W and Azad A L. pattern of partial edentulism among armed forces personnel reporting at armed forces institute of dentistry Pakistan. Pakistan oral and dental J 2011; 31(1):217-221

Ehikhamenor E E, Oboro H O, Onuora O I, Umanah A U, Chukwumah N M and Aivboraye I A. Types of removable prostheses requested by patients who were presented to the University of Benin Teaching Hospital Dental Clinic. J. Dent. Oral Hyg.2010; 2(2), pp. 15-18.

Niarchou A P, Ntala P C, Karamanoli E P, Polyzois G L and Frangou M J. Partial edentulism and removable partial denture design in a dental school population: a survey in Greece. Gerodontology 2011; 00; doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2010.00382.x.

Keyf F. Frequency of the Various Classes of Removable Partial Dentures and Selection of Major Connectors and Direct/Indirect Retainers. Turk J Med Sci. 2001; 31: 445-449.

Enoki K, Ikebe K, Hazeyama T, Ishida K, Matsuda KI . Maeda Y. Incidence of partial denture usage and Kennedy classification. IADR 86th Conference. Dallas, Texas 30th march -4th April 2007

Meskin LH, Brown LJ. Prevalence and patterns of tooth loss in U.S. employed adult and senior populations.J Dent Educ. 1988; 52(12):686-691.

Prabhu N, Kumar S, D’souza M et al. Partial edentulousness in a rural population based on Kennedy’s classification: an epidemiological study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2009; 9: 18–23.

Pun D K. Incidence of removable partial denture types in eastern Wisconsin.M.Sc thesis .Marquette University.2010.