Coll. Antropol.

24 (2000) 2: 485–494
UDC 616.314-089.28(497.5)
Original scientific paper

The Satisfaction with the Removable

Partial Denture Therapy in the
Croatian Adult Population

D. Knezovi} Zlatari}1, A. ^elebi}1, M. Valenti}-Peruzovi}1, R. ]eli}1,

I. Filipovi}-Zore2 and M. Bau~i}3
1 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb,
Zagreb, Croatia
2 Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb,
Zagreb, Croatia
3 Public Health Center »^rnomerec«, Zagreb, Croatia

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the outcomes of treatment and patient’s satisfaction with re-
movable partial dentures in adult Croatian population. Therefore patient’s satisfaction
with their partial dentures in relation to some socio-economic variables was studied.
Patient’s satisfaction with denture retention, speech, aesthetics, comfort of wearing den-
tures, chewing ability was also studied in relation to different denture classification,
construction, material, denture base shape (major connectors), denture support and the
number of missing teeth. A total of 165 patients, 59 males and 105 females between 38
and 87 years took part in this study. A questionnaire, devised for a purpose of the study,
was divided into three parts. In the first part, patients answered questions about age,
gender, marital status, education, general health, socio-economic status, self-supporting
life, period of tooth loss and number of previous denture experiences and in the second
part, patients graded their partial dentures, depending on the level of satisfaction, by
using a scale from 1 to 5. In the third part a dentist determined Kennedy classification
and their modifications, denture material and denture support, denture base shape and
the number of missing teeth and graded a denture construction. Influence of these fac-
tors on patient’s satisfaction was analyzed. A majority of the examined patients were
satisfied with the partial prosthesis, but a small amount of dissatisfaction existed. More
then half of them scored all the examined parameters to the best score category. Con-
sidering chewing with lower partial dentures, women were more satisfied than men (p
<0.05). Patients with more missing teeth gave lower grades for the comfort of wearing
dentures (p<0.05). Patients of higher education gave lower grades (p<0.05) for the aes-
thetics. Patients were not satisfied with speech if the dentist graded a construction of a

Received for publication October 4, 2000.

485
D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

lower partial denture low (p<0.05). Dissatisfaction was related to mastication, aesthet-
ics, number of missing teeth and ability of speech. These findings can aid a clinician in
discussing a treatment plan and help a patient understand the risk of dissatisfaction in
the presence of certain factors.

Introduction uate them from the viewpoint of their

personal satisfaction25.
It is a traditional opinion in prostho- The aim of the study was to assess pa-
dontics that the missing teeth in upper tient’s satisfaction with their partial den-
and/or lower jaw should be replaced by a tures generally, as well as their satisfac-
prosthodontic appliance1,2. Therefore, for tion with retention, speech, aesthetics,
more than half a century, missing teeth chewing and comfort of wearing dentu-
have been replaced by fixed or removable res. The aim was also to assess the influ-
prosthodontic appliances3. ence of factors, such as socio-economic
factors, classification, construction, mate-
Satisfaction with dentures seems to
rial, denture base shape, denture support
have multicausal character4–8. In addi-
and the number of missing teeth on the
tion to the factors directly associated with
level of the patient’s satisfaction.
the functioning of the dentures, presum-
ably patient-related factors also influence
the final result. In addition to the pa-
Material and Methods
tients satisfaction patient’s attitude to-
wards dentures prior to receiving them A total of 165 patients with partial up-
appears to play an important role. Those per, lower, or upper and lower dentures
who thought negatively, were more often were examined at the Department of Re-
dissatisfied9,10. However, very important movable Prosthodontics, School of Dental
factors are the influence of patient’s per- Medicine, University of Zagreb. There
sonality, patient’s attitude towards den- were 59 males and 105 females, in the
tures and patient’s motivation for wear- age between 38 and 87 years. Examined
ing dentures11–13. According to Frank14,15, patients had 113 of upper removable par-
dissatisfaction related to the partial den- tial dentures (URPD) and 130 of lower re-
tures was bigger in patients who had no movable partial dentures (LRPD).
prior experience with the partial dentu- A questionnaire was devised for a pur-
res, in patients who had been wearing op- pose of the study, divided in three parts
posing partial dentures, in patients youn- and was completed by the patients and
ger than age 60, and in patients with the dentist. In the first part, patients
poorer health. were required to answer questions on
Patients adapt to the partial dentures gender, age, marital status, self-support-
individually, depending on their prior ex- ing life, smoking habits, chronic diseases,
perience, expectations, emotional and ge- education, socio-economic status, period
neral health state, as well as on the state of the tooth loss and the previous experi-
of the oral cavity16–24. Success of remov- ence with the denture. Then, in the sec-
able denture treatment, however, is often ond part of the questionnaire they graded
judged differently by dentists and pati- their dentures, depending on the level of
ents25. Dentists consider dentures to be satisfaction. They first graded their den-
successful when they meet certain techni- tures in general and then they graded
cal standards, whereas the patients eval- separately retention of their dentures,

486
 D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

aesthetics, speech, mastication and com- 32.6% of the patients were not able to live
fort of wearing dentures. Patients graded alone and were in the Geriatric Institu-
their dentures by using a scale from 1 to tion (group 3).
5, as it is common in our society. The The most of the patients had at least
mentioned scale is used in all schools and one chronic disease (67.3%): cardiovascu-
Universities. In the third part of the lar, degenerative, gastro-intestinal, dia-
questionnaire the dentist determined betes mellitus, cancer or any other dis-
Kennedy classification and their modifi- ease (group 2), while 33.7% were healthy
cations, material (metal/ acrylic), denture (group 1).
support (mucosa supported/ tooth sup-
ported), upper denture base shape (pala- The biggest percent of the patients
tal plate-type/ U-shaped/ single palatal had medium or higher level of education
bar/ anterior and posterior palatal bar (Gymnasium or High school) (41.2%)
type), lower denture base shape (linguo- (group 3), 29.7% of the patients had low
plate/ half-pear-shaped lingual bar) and level of education (Elementary school)
the number of missing teeth (three gro- (group 1), 10.9% of the patients had fin-
ups: 1. from 1 to 5 teeth missing, 2. from 6 ished vocational school (elementary scho-
to 10 teeth missing and 3. more then 10 ol + three years of vocational school)
teeth missing). The dentist also evalu- (group 2) and 18.2% of the patients had
ated the denture construction by using the highest level of education (University
the same scale from 1 to 5. grade) (group 4).
Statistical analysis was made by us- According to the number of the previ-
ing the statistical software SPSS 10.0 for ous dentures, 51.5% of the patients had
Windows. Descriptive statistics were the first partial denture (group 1), 32.7%
made (distribution of frequencies for of the patients had the second partial
tested variables, mean, standard devia- denture (group 2), 13.3% had the third
tion, median, mode) and the normality of partial denture (group 3), 1.8% had the
distribution was tested by the one-way fourth and 0.6% had the fifth partial den-
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To test the sig- ture (group 4).
nificance of the differences between dif- The examined patients assessed their
ferent variables the Kruskal-Wallis test socio-economic status from 1–5. The best
was used. socio-economic status (5) had only 3.6% of
the patients (group 5), 26.7% of the pa-
tients graded their socio-economic status
Results as 4 (group 4), 35.8% of the patients gra-
In this study, there were 36% (59) ded their socio-economic status as 3 (gro-
males (group 1) and 64% (106) females up 3), 33.9% of the patients graded their
(group 2). Forty-three percentage of the socio-economic status as 2 (group 2) and
patients were married (group 1), 12.7% of none of the patients graded the socio-eco-
the patients were divorced (group 2), nomic status as 1 (group 1).
10.9% were singles (group 3) and 32% Depending on how old the existing
were widows or widowers (group 4). Twen- partial dentures had been, they were di-
ty percent of the patients were smokers vided into 3 groups: 1. – less than one
(group 1) and 80% were non-smokers year, 2. – from 1 to 5 years and 3. – more
(group 2). The biggest number of the pa- than five years. There were 38.8% of the
tients were able to live by themselves upper partial dentures less than one year
(69%) (group 1), 7% of the patients had a in function and 37% of lower partial den-
help from their family (group 2), while tures in the same group (group 1). Second

487
D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

group, which comprised partial dentures the previous experience with the denture.
from 1 to 5 years in function, had 41.8% of Results revealed no significant differen-
upper and 46.7% of lower partial den- ces in general satisfaction with the par-
tures and the third group (more than 5 tial denture, as well as in satisfaction
years) had 19.4% of upper and 16.4% of with speech, chewing, retention and com-
lower partial dentures. fort between patients of different age,
Histograms of the frequencies, as well gender, marital status, self-supporting li-
as standard deviations (SD), modes and fe, smoking habits, existence of chronic
medians for the variables assessed by the diseases, education, socio-economic sta-
patients (scale from 1 to 5), depending on tus, period of the tooth loss and the previ-
how satisfied they had been with their ous experience with the denture (p>0.05),
partial dentures are shown in the Table except for the significant difference for
1. More then half of the examined pa- the mastication with lower partial den-
tients scored all the examined variables ture between male and female patients
to the best score category (5) and only (p<0.05, table 4) and the significant dif-
3,2% of the patients were absolutely un- ference for the aesthetics between pa-
satisfied with their partial dentures. tients of different level of education
(p<0.05, table 4). Kruskal-Wallis test also
Kennedy classification, number of mis- revealed no significant difference in the
sing teeth in upper or/and lower jaw (di- level of satisfaction between patients
vided in 3 groups), denture material and having partial dentures of different Ken-
support and a denture base shape is shown nedy classification, construction, materi-
in the Table 2. al, denture base shape, denture support
Histograms of the frequencies, as well and number of missing teeth (p>0.05), ex-
as standard deviations (SD), modes and cept for the significant difference for the
medians for partial denture construction comfort of wearing a lower partial den-
assessment (scale 1–5), graded by the ture between patients of different num-
dentist are showing the Table 3. ber of tooth loss in mandible (p<0.05, ta-
ble 4) and the significant difference for
Normality of the distribution for the
the speech with a lower partial denture
patient’s assessment of their partial den-
and construction assessment (p<0.05, ta-
tures in general, retention, speech, masti-
ble 4). In the table 4, only the variables
cation and comfort was different from the
and their ranks with significant differ-
normal distribution (p<0.05), as tested by
ences are listed (p<0.05).
the one-way Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
Therefore the non-parametric statistical
test had to be applied for the further Discussion
analysis, i.e. Kruskal-Wallis test, which
is the same as the one-way analysis of Many different factors may influence
variance in the parametric statistics. patients’ satisfaction with their dentures.
Kruskal-Wallis test compares categories Including psychological factors, other fac-
of ranks for testing the significance of the tors that depend upon patient are as fol-
differences and it was compared if any lows: quality of a denture bearing area,
significant difference in the level of satis- quality of oral mucosa, influence of sur-
faction exists between patients of differ- rounding muscles to denture flanges, vis-
ent age, gender, marital status, self-sup- cosity of saliva, patient’s age and ability
porting life, smoking habits, existence of to get used to a denture, state of abut-
chronic diseases, education, socio-econo- ments, state of other teeth in the mouth,
mic status, period of the tooth loss and relation between horizontal and vertical

488
 D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

TABLE 1
HISTOGRAMS FOR VARIABLES ASSESED BY
PATIENTS USING THE SCALE FROM 1 TO 5

Grades of assesment of upper removable Grades of assesment of lower removable

partial dentures partial dentures
0.9% 1 _ 2.3% 1 __
4.4% 3 ___ 1.5% 2 _
20.4% 4 ____________ 3.1% 3 __
74.3% 5 ___________________________________________ 34.6% 4 _______________________
X=4.67; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.647 58.5% 5 ______________________________________
X=4.45; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.827

Grades of aesthetics of upper Grades of aesthetics of lower removable

removable partial dentures partial dentures
0.9% 1 _ 0.8% 1 _
0.9% 2 _ 1.5% 2 _
0.9% 3 _ 1.5% 3 _
17.5% 4 __________ 20.0% 4 _____________
79.8% 5 ______________________________________________ 76.2% 5 ____________________________________________
X=4.74; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.607 X=4.69; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.657

Grades of retention of upper removable Grades of retention of lower removable

partial dentures partial dentures
1.8% 2 _ 1.8% 2 _
2.7% 3 __ 2.7% 3 __
31.0% 4 _______________________ 31.0% 4 _______________________
64.6% 5 _____________________________________________ 64.6% 5 ______________________________________________
X=4.58; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.637 X=4.58; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.637

Grades of fonation with upper Grades of fonation with lower removable

removable partial dentures partial dentures
0.9% 2 _ 0.8% 1 _
1.8% 3 _ 1.5% 2 _
22.1% 4 _____________ 3.1% 3 __
75.2% 5 ___________________________________________ 26.9% 4 __________________
X=4.71; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.542 67.7% 5 ____________________________________________
X=4.59; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.701

Grades of mastication with upper Grades of mastication with lower

removable partial dentures removable partial dentures
0.9% 1 _ 2.3% 1 _
0.9% 2 _ 2.3% 2 _
7.1% 3 _____ 12.3% 3 __
27.4% 4 _____________________ 31.5% 4 ___________
63.7% 5 _____________________________________________ 51.5 % 5 ___________________________
X=4.52; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.745 X=4.26; Median=5.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.963

Grades of comfort of wearing upper Grades of comfort of wearing lower removable

removable partial dentures partial dentures
89.5% 0 __________________________ 76.2% 0 _____________________________________________
5.3% 2 __ 0.8% 1_
4.4% 3_ 8.5% 2 ______
0.9% 4 11.5% 3 ________
X=0.27; Median=0.0; Mod=0.0; SD=0.823 3.1% 4 __
X=0.64; Median=0.0; Mod=0.0; SD=1.213

489
D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

TABLE 2
HISTOGRAMS OF KENNEDY CLASIFICATION, DENTURE MATERIAL, SUPPORT
AND NUMBER OF MISSING TEETH IN MAXILLA AND MANDIBLE

Base shape of upper removable partial Base shape of lower removable partial
dentures dentures
44.2% 1 __________________________________________________ 64.6% 1 __________________________________________
27.4% 2 _______________________________ 35.4% 2 _______________________
27.4% 3 _______________________________ 1= linguplate
0.9% 4 _ 2= half-pear-shaped lingual bar
1= palatal plate-type
2= U-shaped type
3= single palatal bar
4= anterior and posterior palatal bar type

Kennedy clasification for upper Kennedy clasification for lower

removable partial dentures removable partial dentures
56.4% 1 ____________________________________________ 74% 1 _________________________________________________
30.8% 2 ________________________ 19% 2 _____________
11.5% 3 _________ 6% 3 ____
0% 4 1% 4 _
1.3% 5 _ 1= Kennedy class I
1= Kennedy class I 2= Kennedy class II
2= Kennedy class II 3= Kennedy class III
3= Kennedy class III 4= Kennedy class IV
4= Kennedy class IV 5= Kennedy class V
5= Kennedy class V

Missing teeth in maxilla (three groups) Missing teeth in mandible (three groups)
7.3% 1 ___ 7.3% 1 ______
29.7% 2 ____________ 32.7% 2 ___________________________
63% 3 __________________________ 60 % 3 _________________________________________________
1= from 1 to 5 teeth missing 1= from 1 to 5 teeth missing
2= from 6 to 10 teeth missing 2= from 6 to 10 teeth missing
3= more than 10 teeth missing 3= more than 10 teeth missing

Support of upper removable Support of lower removable

partial dentures partial dentures
68.1% 1 _______________________________________ 70.8% 1 _______________________________________
31.9% 2 __________________ 29.3% 2 __________________
1= tooth support 1= tooth support
2= mucosa support 2= mucosa support

Denture material of upper Denture material of upper

removable partial dentures removable partial dentures
44.7% 1 _______________________________________ 37.4% 1 ___________________________
55.3% 2 ____________________________________________ 62.6% 2 __________________________________________
1= acrylic 1= acrylic
2= metal 2= metal

TABLE 3
HISTOGRAMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSESED BY A DENTIST
(USING THE SCALE FROM 1 TO5)

Grades of construction of upper Grades of construction of lower

removable partial dentures removable partial dentures
18.4% 3 _____________________ 6.3% 3 __________________
40.4% 4 ___________________________________________ 41.1% 4 _____________________________________________
41.2% 5 ____________________________________________ 42.6% 5 ______________________________________________
X=4.22; MEDIAN=4.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.741 X=4.26; MEDIAN=4.0; Mod=5.0; SD=0.724

490
 D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

TABLE 4
KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST FOR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN VARIABLES

Gender: Grades for mastication with Level of Education: Grades of aesthetics

lower removable partial denture of upper removable partial denture
Mean ranks Number Mean ranks Number
76.41 46 GENDER = 1 55.99 35 EDUCATION = 1
59.52 84 GENDER = 2 69.00 14 EDUCATION = 2
– 61.15 44 EDUCATION = 3
130 Total 44.71 21 EDUCATION = 4
Corrected –
NUMBER X-square Significance X-square Significance 113 Total
130 5.9742 .0145 7.1987 .0073 Corrected
NUMBER X-square Significance X-square Significance
113 5.4464 .1419 11.2066 .0107

Number of missing teeth in mandible: Grades for construction of LRPD:

Grades for comfort of wearing Grades for speech with lower removable
lower removable partial denture partial denture
Mean ranks Number Mean ranks Number
50.00 4 MISSING TEETH = 1 46.93 21 CONSTRUCTION = 3
73.30 47 MISSING TEETH = 2 64.18 53 CONSTRUCTION = 4
61.65 79 MISSING TEETH= 3 72.69 55 CONSTRUCTION = 5
– –
130 Total 130 Total
Corrected Corrected
NUMBER X-square Significance X-square Significance NUMBER X-square Significance X-square Significance
130 3.5180 .1722 6.3249 .0423 130 7.2609 .0265 10.7843 .0046

dimension of occlusion, hygiene habits, that the most of the patients are com-
diet, existence of chronic diseases, posi- pletely satisfied with their therapy with
tion of patient’s teeth in the mouth, qual- partial dentures. This result is in agree-
ity of a fixed prosthodontic appliance, etc. ment with similar studies in our country
Influence of patient’s age, gender, on the patient’s satisfaction with com-
self-supporting life, number of previous plete dentures and fixed prosthodontic
dentures, economic status, marital sta- restaurations29–34.
tus, etc. on patient’s satisfaction has al- There was no significant differences
ready been studied in a few papers, as between men and women in a level of sat-
well as the influence of a denture reten- isfaction with their partial dentures in
tion and aesthetics and similar fac- general, aesthetics, speech, etc. (p>0.05),
tors26,27. except for the mastication with lower par-
Denture quality depends on the know- tial dentures (p<0.05) where men were
ledge and the skills of the therapist and less satisfied than women, as they had
the technician as well28. more medium and low ranks, which is in
In the results of this study, it is clear agreement with Frank14,15and Wong35.
that the distributions of patients’ assess- According to Frank14,15 and Wong35,
ment of their partial dentures (using a patients who had experience with previ-
scale from 1 to 5) are completely asym- ous partial dentures were more satisfied
metrical towards the highest scores than the patients with the first partial
(grades), i.e. the most of the patients denture. In this study, no difference was
(more than 60%) gave the biggest grades found in patients’ satisfaction with par-
to their dentures. This fact points out tial dentures between patients with the

491
D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

first partial denture and patients who denture comfort and the number of miss-
had previous experience. In this study no ing teeth in the lower jaw. It shows that
significant difference existed between pa- the patients with bigger number of the
tients who had the existing dentures be- missing teeth in the lower jaw (group 3–
ing in mouth for a different period, be- more then 10 missing teeth) had more
tween patients who were self supporting uncomfortable dentures (scores 4 or 5
and those who were not, between the pa- given by patients in judging the quantity
tients with different socio-economic sta- of the uncomfort) in comparison with pa-
tus, between patients with different mar- tients with less missing teeth.
ital status, smoking habits and the level There was also statistically significant
of general health (p>0.05). According to difference between the patients’ grades
Frank, less healthy patients reported less for speech and the dentist’s evaluation of
general satisfaction and less satisfaction the lower denture construction (p<0.05).
with speech, which was not found in this In denture constructions of lower den-
study. It was thought that patients of tist’s scores patients were also less satis-
higher economic state would be more sat- fied with the speech with their partial
isfied, supposing they could afford more dentures.
expensive construction, but the results
Patients of higher level of education
were opposite, which was attributed to
have probably higher criteria for the aes-
the fact that the most expenses of the re-
thetics appearance as they assessed their
movable partial denture is completely
partial denture aesthetics with lower
covered by the insurance in Croatia.
grades than patients of lower level of edu-
None of the factors, such as the Ken- cation. Males with lower partial denture
nedy classification, denture base shape, were less satisfied with chewing (p<0.05)
sort of the material or the denture sup- than females.
port, were statistically related to the pa-
tient’s satisfaction (p>0.05).
Although we supposed to find that the Conclusions
patients with metal frameworks, tooth
supported dentures and palatal bar Upon the statistical analysis the fol-
mayor connectors should be more satis- lowing conclusions were made:
fied, that was not found in the results. Patients are mostly satisfied with
But if we consider the highest percent of their partial dentures (the distribution of
the scores 4 and 5 for the construction the scores of the patients’ assessments
(given by the dentist), then it means that was asymmetrical towards the highest
the correct indication was set for almost scores in all examined categories). Only
all the patients. If it was possible to make 3.2% of the patients are not absolutely
a tooth-supported denture and metal satisfied with their partial dentures.
framework denture then it was done, and More then half of the examined patients
where it was impossible, larger acrylic scored all the examined variables to the
denture base, or mucosa-supported den- best score category (5).
ture was made. Adequate construction There was no significant difference in
was done to almost all the patients, patients’ assessments of the quality of
therefore there was no differences be- their partial dentures between the differ-
tween their satisfaction. ent age groups, the ability of self-
According to the results, statistically -supporting life, the social and economic
significant difference (p<0.05) was found status, the marital status, the smoking
between the patients’ evaluation of lower habits, the presence of the chronic dis-

492
 D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

eases, the number of previous dentures chewing (p<0.05) than females. Lower
and the age of the present dentures teeth missing in the mandible, more
(p>0.05). The Kennedy classification, the problems with comfort of a lower partial
material, the denture base shape and the denture appeared. Lower construction as-
denture support did not make any influ- sessment of a lower partial denture,
ence on the patient’s satisfaction with the lower the patients’ satisfaction with
denture retention, the ability to speech, speech (p<0.05) was.
the mastication, the aesthetics and the These four factors were found to be as-
comfort of wearing the dentures (p>0.05). sociated with dissatisfaction in remov-
Patients of higher level of education able partial denture wearers and can aid
assessed their partial denture aesthetics a clinician in discussing a treatment plan
with lower grades than patients of lower and help the patient understand the risk
level of education. Males with lower par- of dissatisfaction in the presence of cer-
tial denture were less satisfied with tain factors.

REFERENCES
1. BURNS, D. R., J. W. UNGER, R. K. ELSWICK STEELE, J. G., S. M. AYATOLLAHI, A. W. WALLS, J.
JR, D. A. BECK, J. Prosthet. Dent., 73 (1995) 354. — J. MURRAY, Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol., 25
2. BURNS, D. R., J. W. UNGER, R. K. ELSWICK JR, (1997) 143. — 21. VIGILD, M., Community Dent.
J. A. GIGLIO, J. Prosthet. Dent., 73 (1995) 364. — 3. Oral Epidemiol., 15 (1987) 128. — 22. ZARB, G. A., H.
WATSON, C. L., P. E. REEVE, E. BARNES, A. E. F. MACKAY, Aust. Dent. J., 25 (1980) 63. — 23. ZARB,
LANE, J. F. BATES, J. Oral. Rehabil., 13 (1986) 83. G. A., H. F. MACKAY, Aust. Dent. J., 25 (1980) 152. —
— 4. VAN WAAS, M. A. J., J. Prosthet. Dent., 63 24. LIBBY, G., M. R. ARCURI W. E. LAVELLE, L.
(1990) 545. — 5. VAN WAAS, M. A. J., Proc. Eur. HEBL, J. Prosthet. Dent., 78 (1997) 127 — 25. WAKA-
Prosthodont. Assoc., 7 (1984) 46. — 6. VAN WAAS, M. BAYASHI, N., M. A. M. YATABE, M. SATO, K. NA-
A. J., J. Prosthet. Dent., 64 (1990) 569. — 7. VAN KAMURA, J. Oral Rehabil., 25 (1998) 507. — 26.
WAAS, M. A. J., J. Prosthet. Dent., 63 (1990) 307. — WINDCHY, A. M., J. C. MORRIS, J. Prosthet. Dent.,
8. VAN WAAS, M., J. MEEUWISSEN, R. MEEUWIS- 79 (1998) 249. — 27. BUDTZ-JORGENSEN, E., G.
SEN, A. KAYSER, W. KALK, M. VANT HOF, Com- BOCHET, J. Prosthet. Dent., 80 (1998) 58. — 28. DE-
munity Dent. Oral. Epidemiol., 22 (1994) 315. — 9. GRANDMONT P., J. S. FEINE, R. TACHE, P. BOUD-
VERVOORN, J. M., A. S H. DUINKERKE, F. LUTE- RIAS, W.B. DONOHUE, R. TANGUAY, J. P. LUND,
IJN, Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol., 19 (1991) J. Dent. Res., 73 (1994) 1096. — 29. ^ELEBI], A., M.
45. — 10. VERVOORN, J. M., A. S. H. DUINKERKE, VALENTI]-PERUZOVI], J. STIPETI], Z. DELI],
F. LUTEIJN, Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol., 16 T. STANI^I], L. IBRAHIMAGI], Coll. Antropoll., 24
(1988) 364. — 11. MERELIE, D. L., B. HEYMAN, Suppl. (2000) 71. – 30. STIPETI], J., A. ^ELEBI], V.
Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol., 20 (1992) 106. — JEROLIMOV, I. VINTER, S. KRALJEVI], Z. RAJI],
12. KAY, E. J., Br. Dent. J. 20 (1993) 212. — 13. HA- Coll. Antropoll., 24 Suppl. (2000) 25. — 31. ^ELEBI],
KESTAM, U., T. KARLSSON, B. SODERFELDT, O. A., M. VALENTI]-PERUZOVI], J. STIPETI], M.
RYDEN, P. GLANTZ, Acta Odontol. Scand., 55 (1997) ZRNA, T. KUNA, Z. DELI], Acta Stomatol. Croat.,
365. — 14. FRANK, R. P., J.S. BRUDVIK, B. LERO- 33 (1999) 421. — 32. STIPETI], J., A. ^ELEBI], A.
UX, P. MILGROM, N. HAWKINS, J. Prosthet. Dent., ]ATOVI], B. LAZ], J. PANDURI], Acta Stomatol.
83 (2000) 521. — 15. FRANK, R. P., P. MILGROM, B. Croat., 33 (1999) 349. – 33. DELI], Z., M. [IMUNO-
G. LEROUX, N.R. HAWKINS, J. Prosthet. Dent., 80 VI]-[O[KI], R. GR@I], S. VUKOVOJAC, Z. RAJI],
(1998) 36. — 16. WEINSTEIN, M., J. SCHUCHMAN, TI. KUNA, TO. KUNA, Coll. Antropoll., 24 Suppl.
J. LIEBERMAN, J. Prosthet. Dent., 59 (1988) 327. — (2000) 31. – 34. ]ATI], A., A. ^ELEBI], M. VALEN-
17. COWAN, R. D., J. A. GILBERT, D. A. ELLEDGE, TI]-PERUZOVI], A. ]ATOVI], T. KUNA, Coll. An-
F. D. MC GLYNN, J. Prosthet. Dent., 65 (1991) 668. tropoll., 22 (Supplement) (1998) 139. — 35. WONG
— 18. REIFEL, N. M., H. RANA, M. MARCUS, Adv. M. M., R. ETTINGER, M. J. BARSBY, Iowa Dent. J.
Dent. Res., 11 (1997) 281. — 19. JOKOVI], A., D. 81 (1995) 13.
LOCKER, J. Public Health. Dent., 57 (1997) 40. — 20.

493
D. Knezovi} Zlatari} et al.: Partial Denture Therapy, Coll. Antropol. 24 (2000) 2: 485–494

D. Knezovi} Zlatari}

Department of prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb,

Gunduli}eva 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

ZADOVOLJSTVO PACIJENATA DJELOMI^NIM MOBILNIM PROTEZAMA

U HRVATSKOJ POPULACIJI

SA@ETAK

Nema dovoljno podataka o tome koliko su pacijenti zadovoljni djelomi~nim proteza-

ma u hrvatskoj populaciji. Svrha rada bila je ocijeniti zadovoljstvo pacijenata djelo-
mi~nim protezama u odnosu na socio-ekonomske ~imbenike, i ~imbenike kao {to su:
retencija proteza, fonacija, estetika, `vakanje i `uljanje proteza. Svrha je, tako|er, bila
ocijeniti zadovoljstvo pacijenata s djelomi~nim protezama razli~ite konstrukcije, klasi-
fikacije, razli~itog materijala, razli~ite veli~ine baze i vrste optere}enja te razli~itog
broja preostalih zuba u ~eljusti. U istra`ivanju je sudjelovalo 165 pacijenata, nosilaca
gornje, donje, ili gornje i donje djelomi~ne proteze, (59 mu{kih i 105 `enskih pacijenata,
u dobi od 38 do 87 godina). U svrhu procjene uspje{nosti terapije uporabljen je upitnik,
podijeljen u tri dijela. U prvom dijelu, pacijenti su dali podatke o spolu, dobi, bra~nom
stanju, sposobnosti samostalnog `ivljenja, edukaciji, pu{enju, kroni~nim bolestima, so-
cijalnom statusu, koja je po redu djelomi~na proteza. U drugom dijelu, pacijenti su
ocjenjivali svoje djelomi~ne proteze ovisno o stupnju zadovoljstva protezama, pomo}u
skale od 1 do 5. U tre}em dijelu, stomatolog je odredio Kennedy klasifikaciju, potklase
po Kennedyju, vrstu materijala i optere}enja proteza, veli~inu baze proteze, broj nedo-
staju}ih zuba, te je ocijenio konstrukciju proteza. Analiziran je utjecaj ~imbenika na
zadovoljstvo pacijenata. Ve}ina ispitivanih pacijenata bila je zadovoljna protezama, a
samo je manji broj bio nezadovoljan. Vi{e od polovice pacijenata ocijenilo je svoje pro-
teze najvi{im ocjenama. @ene su bile zadovoljnije `vakanjem donjim djelomi~nim pro-
tezama od mu{karaca (p<0,05). Pacijenti s ve}im brojem nedostaju}ih zuba lo{ije su
ocijenili udobnost no{enja proteza (p<0,05). Pacijenti vi{eg stupnja edukacije lo{ije su
ocijenili estetiku svojih proteza (p<0,05), a kod pacijenata koji su bili manje zadovoljni
fonacijom donjim djelomi~nim protezama, stomatolog je dao ni`u ocjenu za kon-
strukciju proteza (p<0,05). Nezadovoljstvo protezama bilo je povezano sa sposobno{}u
`vakanja protezama, estetikom, brojem nedostaju}ih zuba te fonacijom. Rezultati
istra`ivanja od velike su pomo}i stomatologu u planiranju tretmana, ali i pacijentu u
lak{em razumijevanju rizika no{enja proteza.

494