337

Journal of Oral Science, Vol. 54, No. 4, 337-342, 2012

Original

Clinical evaluation of failures in removable partial dentures

Janaina H. Jorge, Cristiane C. C. Quishida, Carlos E. Vergani, Ana L. Machado,
Ana C. Pavarina and Eunice T. Giampaolo
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School,
UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, SP, Brazil
(Received 23 August and accepted 1 November 2012)

Abstract: The aim of this clinical study was to

evaluate the effects of removable partial dentures
on the support tissues and changes occurring in
lower tooth-supported and bilateral distal-extension
dentures, 5 years after placement. The study involved
analysis of a total of 53 patients who received prosthetic treatment for removable partial dentures.
The patients were divided into two groups. In group
1, the patients had a completely edentulous maxilla
and an edentulous area with natural teeth remaining
in both the anterior and posterior regions. In group
2, the patients had a completely edentulous maxilla
and partially edentulous mandible with preserved
anterior teeth. Tooth mobility, prevalence of caries,
fracture of the abutment teeth, fracture and/or deformation of the removable partial denture components
and stability of the denture base were evaluated. The
use of a removable partial denture increased tooth
mobility, reduced the prevalence of caries, and did not
cause loss or fracture of the abutments or damage to
their components, when compared with the baseline.
It was concluded that there was no difference between
the groups as evaluated in terms of tooth mobility,
prevalence of caries, loss and fracture of the abutments or damage to the components of the removable
partial denture. (J Oral Sci 54, 337-342, 2012)

Correspondence to Dr. Janaina Habib Jorge, Department of Dental

Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, UNESP
Univ Estadual Paulista, Rua Humait, n 1680, Araraquara, SP,
CEP: 14801-903, Brazil
Tel: +55-16-3301 6550
Fax: +55-16-3301 6406
Email: janaina@foar.unesp.br & janainahj@bol.com.br

Keywords: removable partial denture; abutment teeth;

prosthodontics; planning.

Introduction

Although there are an increasing number of elderly

dentate people in countries such as the USA and United
Kingdom (1), survey data have indicated that at least
one quarter of a million people under the age of 40
have removable partial dentures (2). Removable partial
dentures should maintain the health of the remaining
dentition and surrounding oral tissue. However, the
factors determining the prognosis of removable partial
dentures are still unclear.
Studies have shown that partial dentures in the mouth
increase the formation of biofilm and, consequently,
an increase in the occurrence of caries and periodontal
disease (1-4). Other research has produced more favorable
results, with moderate degrees of injury or practically no
periodontal changes (5-7). Therefore, the existing results
are inconclusive and sometimes contradictory.
The forces applied to the abutment teeth and their
effects are very important considerations when designing
and constructing removable partial dentures. Adequate
planning of a partial denture requires an understanding
of the forces generated during mastication and their
distribution to supporting structures. If definite principles are followed when planning and constructing the
prosthesis, it functions so that the stresses it produces are
safely within the range of tissue tolerance, thus enabling
it to contribute to periodontal health. Several long-term
clinical studies have shown that correctly designed
removable partial dentures do not have any detrimental
effects on abutment teeth (8-10). However, some investigations have shown that a higher level of oral hygiene is

338

needed for removable partial denture patients and that the

denture design should be as simple as possible, covering
only the essential hard and soft tissues (11). There
was a strong correlation between the presence of local
pathologic alterations accompanying the use of partial
dentures and poor oral hygiene.
The distal extension removable partial denture does
not have advantages over tooth support, since the
residual ridge must be used for both support and retention. Biomechanically, a partial denture is a prosthetic
restoration that derives its support principally from the
tissues underlying its base, and only to a minor degree
from the abutments. The distal extension removable
partial denture has a tendency for lateral movement
during function. Moderate intermittent forces exerted
on the bony ridge by a prosthesis may be stimulating
and help preserve, rather than destroy, the bony ridge
(12). On the other hand, excessive force causes resorption of the residual ridge (13). As the ridges resorb and
tissue contact is lost, the result is a tissueward migration
of the denture bases. It is assumed that horizontal and
lateral stress on abutment teeth may cause, or favor, the
breakdown of periodontal structures and increase tooth
mobility.
Therefore, the aim of this clinical study was to
evaluate the effects of removable partial dentures on the
support tissues and the changes occurring in lower toothsupported and bilateral distal-extension dentures, 5 years
after placement. These changes included tooth mobility,
prevalence of caries, fracture of the abutment teeth, fracture and/or deformation of the removable partial denture
components and stability of the denture base.

Materials and Methods

Selection of patients

The study population comprised 75 patients who,

between March and December 2007, were fitted with
complete upper and lower removable partial dentures.
The mean age of the patients was 68.6 years and none
had general health complications. Two types of arch were
selected for this investigation: a bilateral edentulous area
with abutment corresponding to the first premolar and
second molar on each side (Kennedy Class III, mod. 1)
and a bilateral distally extended lower with six natural
anterior teeth (Kennedy Class I). For the abutments of
tooth-supported removable partial dentures, a clasp
design with a cast circumferential buccal retentive arm,
a rigid reciprocal clasp arm and a rest adjacent to the
edentulous ridges was selected (Group 1). In cases with
bilateral distal-extension, a clasp design including the T
clasp of a Roach retentive arm, a rigid reciprocal arm

and a mesial rest were used (Group 2). The undercuts

engaged by the retentive arms were limited to 0.25 mm.
The framework casts were made in cobalt-chrome alloy
(Wironit - Bego - Bremer Goldschlgerei Wilh. Herbst
GmbH & Co., Bremen, Germany). All biological and
mechanical principles of removable partial denture
design and construction were followed to minimize the
forces transmitted to the supporting tissues or to decrease
the movement of the prostheses in relation to them. The
altered-cast impression technique was used to provide
adequate support. Acrylic resin anatomic posterior teeth
were set in balanced occlusion and the denture bases were
constructed in acrylic resin. Prior to prosthetic treatment,
all the other necessary dental treatments such as periodontal and restorative were carried out. Prosthodontic
and periodontal data were recorded immediately after
insertion of the partial dentures (baseline). On examination of these patients, each abutment tooth was evaluated
for the presence of mobility and caries. The mobility was
rated from 0 (76% in Group 1 and 68% in Group 2) to 1
(24% in Group 1 and 32% in Group 2) and none of the
abutments presented carious lesions. Oral examinations
were carried out by one of two previously calibrated
clinicians whose inter- and intra-examiner variability
was not significant. All dentures were seated in the
mouth before the start of the experiment and checked
for accuracy of fit and stability. Some adjustments were
made, and affected areas were polished. Patients received
oral hygiene instructions and a self-educational manual.
Oral instructions included mechanical tooth cleaning
three times daily using a soft toothbrush, interproximal
flossing and interspace toothbrushing. The cleaning of
removable dentures included mechanical cleaning with a
soft toothbrush and dentifrice. After 5 years, all patients
were contacted either by mail or telephone. Each patient
was offered a free examination if they participated in the
study, but only 53 of them attended (70 per cent of the
original sample). The study was approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee of Araraquara Dental School,
and informed consent was obtained from each patient.

Clinical measurement parameters

The parameters listed below were carefully recorded at

the baseline and five years after the prostheses had been
inserted:
1) Tooth mobility: the abutment tooth mobility was
graded clinically by placing a tooth between two metal
instrument handles and moving the tooth in as many
directions as possible. The following scores were used:
(0) no mobility, (1) < 1 mm movement in the horizontal
plane, (2) > 1 mm movement in the horizontal plane, (3)

100

100

80

80

60

60

% teeth

% teeth

339

40
20

40
20

0
G1

G2
score 0

score 1

Fig. 1 D
 egree of mobility of removable partial denture abutment teeth at the baseline..

movement in an apical direction.

2) Prevalence of caries: the presence or absence of
pit and fissure caries was determined with a mirror and
explorer. The clinical examination was supplemented
by intra-oral radiographs to detect interproximal and
recurrent caries. The radiographic examination evaluated
the caries status by means of interproximal bitewing
radiographs.
3) Abutment loss: abutment tooth losses and extractions were evaluated, based on data collected at the
baseline.
4) Fracture of the abutment teeth: fracture of the abutment teeth was assessed clinically and examination was
supplemented by intra-oral radiographs to detect root
fractures.
5) Fracture and/or deformation of the removable
partial denture components: any visible fracture in the
following components was observed: rests, clasps, major
connector, minor connectors, guiding planes, indirect
retention, basal saddle and artificial teeth.
6) Stability of the denture base: stability was tested
clinically by applying alternate finger pressure over the
extension base in a tissueward direction.

Statistical analysis

Differences between the baseline and 5-year values

were compared in terms of percentages. The chi-squared
or Fisher test was used to examine the distribution of fracture and/or deformation of the removable partial denture
components, instability of the base and prevalence of
caries and fracture of the abutment teeth. Abutment
mobility was evaluated using the Mann-Whitney test.
Students t-test was conducted to evaluate bone loss.
The statistical analyses were performed at a 0.05 level
of significance.

G1

G2

score 0

score 1

score 2

Fig. 2 D
 egree of mobility of removable partial denture abutment teeth after 5 years.

Results

Assessment of clinical parameters at the baseline

In Groups 1 and 2, most of the abutments (76% and

68%, respectively) had a score of 0 for mobility (Fig. 1).
As described previously, none of the abutments showed
carious lesions, or fractures of the abutment teeth and
roots.

Assessment of clinical parameters in Group 1

and 2 after 5 years

Figure 2 presents data for tooth mobility. The results

revealed no significant changes in tooth mobility between
the groups 5 years after insertion. However, there was a
decrease in the frequency of teeth with a mobility score
of 0 compared to the baseline. The prevalence of caries
(P = 0.9), fracture of the abutment teeth (P = 0.704) and
roots (P = 1.0) are shown in Table 1. The results revealed
no significant changes between Groups 1 and 2. There
was no significant difference in the incidence of abutment loss between the groups (Table 1).
Table 2 summarizes the prevalence of fracture and/
or deformation of the removable partial denture components. There were no differences in the prevalence of
failure between the types of removable partial dentures
(Groups 1 and 2). All the prosthesis failures were fractures, and there were no cases of deformation. The failure
rate for artificial teeth was low (Table 3), being less than
5%, and there were no significant differences in incidence
between Groups 1 and 2. The proportion of prostheses
with instability of the base is also shown in Table 3.
Although 23% of prostheses showed displacement in
Group 1 and 48% did so in Group 2, the difference was
not significant (P = 0.057).

340
Table 1 T
 he prevalence of caries, abutment tooth and root fractures, and incidence of
tooth loss in Groups 1 and 2
Group
G1 (n = 26)
G2 (n = 27)
2
Fisher

Caries
12 (46%)
12 (44%)
0.900

Fracture
4 (15%)
3 (11%)

Root fracture
0 (0%)
0 (0%)

Abutment lost
1 (4%)
2 (7%)

0.704

1.000

0.514

Table 2 The prevalence of removable partial denture component fractures in Groups 1 and 2
Groups
G1 (n = 26)
G2 (n = 27)
Fisher

Rest
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000

Reciprocal clasp
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
0.610

Component Fractures
Retentive clasp
Major connector
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
1.000
1.000

Saddle
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000

Minor connector
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000

Guiding plane
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000

Table 3 T
 he prevalence of fracture or displacement of artificial teeth and the denture
base in Groups 1 and 2
Groups
G1 (n = 26)
G2 (n = 27)
2
Fisher

Discussion

Artificial teeth
Fracture
Displacement
0 (0%)
1 (4)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1.000

In comparison with the baseline, the results of this

study showed that values of the clinical parameters
studied increased in both Groups 1 and 2, except for
fracture of the root and abutment loss. Clinical findings
after 5 years showed that almost half of the abutment
teeth, in both groups, presented some degree of mobility.
However, the present study was not designed to demonstrate any differences between the groups (extension base
and tooth-supported base).
Movement of the base of an entirely tooth-borne
partial denture toward the edentulous ridge is prevented
primarily by rests placed on the abutment teeth located at
each end of each edentulous space. As a result, rotation of
the tooth-borne partial denture is relatively nonexistent.
However, a slight increase of tooth mobility was noted
for this group. It has been reported that tooth mobility
increases during the life of removable partial dentures.
This increased mobility might be attributable to the
physiological aging process and concomitant changes in
the periodontal structures (14). According to Svanberg
et al. (15), tooth mobility may increase as a result of
adaptive, non-pathological change in the absence of

0.491

Denture base
Fracture
Displacement
0 (0%)
6 (23%)
0 (0%)
13 (48%)
0.057
1.000

any inflammatory symptoms. Physiological processes

of ageing with associated reduction of the periodontal
tissues might possibly explain the increase of mobility in
the abutment teeth.
Although no significant difference was found between
the two groups, the extension-base removable partial
dentures showed a tendency for abutments to have more
mobility. Considering that forces directly parallel to
the long axis of a tooth are better tolerated than tipping
or torquing forces (16,17), changes in abutment tooth
mobility with time are expected to be more pronounced
in distal extension than in tooth-supported removable
partial dentures. Bilateral distal extension removable
partial dentures share their support between the abutment teeth and the edentulous ridge (18). Differences in
resilience between these supporting elements affect the
distribution of force on the abutment teeth and residual
alveolar ridges. In addition, alveolar resorption is a
continuous process, with resulting loss of fit in local
areas (19). The fit of the denture base to the alveolar
ridge declines progressively as the alveolar ridge is
resorbed. The compromised fit of the denture adversely
affects the retention, stability and support of the remov-

341

able prostheses. Consequently, this can result in mobility

of abutment teeth. These results are contrary to several
reports that showed moderate-to-severe damage to the
periodontium (20,21). Carlsson et al. (3) also reported an
increase of mobility in the abutment teeth when a partial
denture (distal extension) was worn by the patient and
a decrease in abutment mobility when a partial denture
was not worn. When interpreting the results presented
in Fig. 2, the percentage of abutments with a mobility
degree of 0 was approximately 55% for Group 1 and 38%
for Group 2. In addition, the great majority of the abutments in both groups exhibited a mobility degree of 0 or
1. These favorable results could be attributed to planned
prosthetic treatment. Properly designed removable partial
dentures may provide a homogeneous distribution of
occlusal forces, create regular adaptation of periodontal
tissue and a decrease in tooth mobility. The results of this
study are in agreement with those of Jorge et al. (10), who
found no significant changes in tooth mobility between
two types of design (extension base and tooth-supported
base) during six months of follow-up.
In general, in this study, the removable partial
denture itself appeared to affect caries status (44% to
46%). Insertion of removable partial dentures has been
shown to be associated with a quantitative increase of
Streptococcus mutans in saliva, thereby contributing to
the increased risk of caries in removable partial denture
wearers (22,23). If a poor oral hygiene habit is apparent,
then educational and motivational efforts to improve
self-care skills are in order. A recent study demonstrated
the importance of patient education, good oral self-care
and regular professional recall for people who wear
removable partial dentures (24).
There was no significant difference in the incidence
of loss and fracture of the abutments for the two groups
(Table 1). The results of this study are in agreement with
Saito et al. (25), Kratochvil et al. (26) and Chandler and
Brudvik (27), who reported that the incidence of abutment
tooth loss with removable partial dentures was generally
low. On the other hand, this finding is in contrast to the
results of Vanzeveren et al. (28), who observed that the
number of abutments lost was significantly higher in the
presence of free-end edentulous areas as compared with
bounded edentulous areas.
In this study, the incidence of fracture of the removable partial denture was less than 5% and there were no
significant differences in incidence between Groups 1 and
2. Indeed, the fracture percentages of removable partial
dentures can be considered low considering the high
number of casting defects and inaccuracies mentioned
in several studies (29). Vermeulen et al. (24) reported a

fracture percentage of 17% after 5 years, increasing to

35% after 10 years. Korber et a1. (30) found a repair
percentage of 40% after 5 years, of which 15% was
caused exclusively by fractures of metal parts.
Because of the small number of prostheses available,
the results must be judged carefully. However, the negative effects of removable partial dentures on the support
tissues can be diminished by home-care procedures and
professional biofilm control recall appointments.
Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded
that there was no difference between the groups when
evaluated in terms of tooth mobility, prevalence of caries,
loss and fracture of the abutments, or damage to the
components of removable partial dentures.

Acknowledgments

This investigation was supported by The State of

Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP; grant No.
05/53105-8).

References

1. Preshaw PM, Walls AW, Jakubovics NS, Moynihan

PJ, Jepson NJ, Loewy Z (2011) Association
of removable partial denture use with oral and
systemic health. J Dent 39, 711-719.
2. Hummel SK, Wilson MA, Marker VA, Nunn ME
(2002) Quality of removable partial dentures worn
by the adult U.S. population. J Prosthet Dent 88,
37-43.
3. Carlsson GE, Hedegrd B, Koivumaa KK (1965)
Studies in partial dental prosthesis. IV. Final
results of a 4-year longitudinal investigation of
dentogingivally supported partial dentures. Acta
Odontol Scand 23, 443-472.
4. Bergman B (1987) Periodontal reactions related to
removable partial dentures: a literature review. J
Prosthet Dent 58, 454-458.
5. 
Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO (1971)
Periodontal and prosthetic conditions in patients
treated with removable partial dentures and artificial crowns. A longitudinal two-year study. Acta
Odontol Scand 29, 621-638.
6. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO (1977) Caries
and periodontal status in patients fitted with
removable partial dentures. J Clin Periodontol 4,
134-146.
7. Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO (1982) Caries,
periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with
removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal
study. J Prosthet Dent 48, 506-514.
8. Kapur KK, Deupree R, Dent RJ, Hasse AL (1994)

342

A randomized clinical trial of two basic removable

partial denture designs. Part I: Comparisons of
five-year success rates and periodontal health. J
Prosthet Dent 72, 268-282.
9. 
Bergman B, Hugoson A, Olsson CO (1995) A
25-year longitudinal study of patients treated with
removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 22,
595-599.
10. Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, Machado
AL, Pavarina AC, Cardoso de Oliveira MR (2007)
Clinical evaluation of abutment teeth of removable
partial denture by means of the Periotest method. J
Oral Rehabil 34, 222-227.
11. Addy M, Bates JF (1979) Plaque accumulation
following the wearing of different types of removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil 6, 111-117.
12. Carlsson GE, Otterland A, Wennstrm A, Odont D
(1967) Patient factors in appreciation of complete
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 17, 322-328.
13. Kelly E (2003) Changes caused by a mandibular
removable partial denture opposing a maxillary
complete denture. J Prosthet Dent 90, 213-219.
14. Piwowarczyk A, Khler KC, Bender R, Bchler A,
Lauer HC, Ottl P (2007) Prognosis for abutment
teeth of removable dentures: a retrospective study.
J Prosthodont 16, 377-382.
15. Svanberg GK, King GJ, Gibbs CH (1995) Occlusal
considerations in periodontology. Periodontol
2000 9, 106-117.
16. 
Stewart KL, Rudd KD, Kuebker WA (1992)
Components of a removable partial denture: major
connectors, minor connectors, rests and rest seats.
In: Clinical removable partial prosthodontics, 2nd
ed, Ishiyaku Euro America, St Louis, 19-57.
17. McGivney GP, Carr AB (2000) Rests and rest seats.
In: McCrackens removable partial prosthodontics,
10th ed, Mosby, St Louis, 77-95.
18. Ogata K, Miyake T, Okunishi M (1992) Longitudinal study on occlusal force distribution in lower
distal-extension removable partial dentures with
circumferential clasps. J Oral Rehabil 19, 585-594.
19. 
Tallgren A (2003) The continuing reduction of
the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture

wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25

years. J Prosthet Dent 89, 427-435.
20. Fenner W, Gerber A, Muhlemann HR (1956) Tooth
mobility changes during treatment with partial
denture prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 6, 520-525.
21. Zlatari DK, Celebi A, Valenti-Peruzovi M
(2002) The effect of removable partial dentures on
periodontal health of abutment and non-abutment
teeth. J Periodontol 73, 137-144.
22. Mihalow DM, Tinanoff N (1988) The influence of
removable partial dentures on the level of Streptococcus mutans in saliva. J Prosthet Dent 59, 49-51.
23. Mihalow DM, Tinanoff N (1989) Influence of
removable partial dentures on the Streptococcus
mutans level in saliva. Soproden 5, 245-247.
24. 
Vermeulen AH, Keltjens HM, vant Hof MA,
Kayser AF (1996) Ten-year evaluation of removable partial dentures: survival rates based on
retreatment, not wearing and replacement. J Prosthet Dent 76, 267-272.
25. Saito M, Notani K, Miura Y, Kawasaki T (2002)
Complications and failures in removable partial
dentures: a clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehabil 29,
627-633.
26. Kratochvil FJ, Davidson PN, Guijt J (1982) Fiveyear survey of treatment with removable partial
dentures. Part I. J Prosthet Dent 48, 237-244.
27. Chandler JA, Brudvik JS (1984) Clinical evaluation of patients eight to nine years after placement
of removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 51,
736-743.
28. Vanzeveren C, DHoore W, Bercy P, Leloup G
(2003) Treatment with removable partial dentures:
a longitudinal study. Part II. J Oral Rehabil 30,
459-469.
29. 
Eerikinen E, Rantanen T (1986) Inaccuracies
and defects in frameworks for removable partial
dentures. J Oral Rehabil 13, 347-353.
30. Krber E, Lehmann K, Pangidis C (1975) Control
studies on periodontal and periodontal-gingival
retention of partial prosthesis. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z
30, 77-84.