A comparative clinical analysis between a 1-year post-insertion conventional upper denture with a duplicate of the same denture: a clinical study

Abstract

Purpose and aim of the study: Copy denture treatment is an effective method of denture replacement with the possibility of a reduced number of appointments. Patients have reported satisfactory results from the implementation of this technique. However, there is limited scientific evidence to show satisfaction with duplicate dentures. The use of the duplication techniques also has economic implications over constructing new dentures which were not analyzed previously. Since the present literature predominantly consisted of case reports, a clinical study was designed to compare different methods of conventional denture duplication and assess patient satisfaction, along with a cost comparison analysis for the first time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare patient satisfaction between two types of denture duplicating techniques; the conventional denture duplication method, and the stock teeth denture duplication method. Another aim of this study was to carry out a cost comparison analysis between the denture duplicating techniques and the method of constructing a new conventional denture. Research questions: Are there any differences with regards to patient satisfaction between the two types of denture duplication methods? Are there any differences in initial and material costs between the two types of denture duplicating methods when compared to newly fabricated dentures? Materials & Methods: In this clinical study, edentulous patients received a duplicate maxillary denture made by either of two methods; the conventional denture duplication method, and the stock teeth denture duplication method. Oral health related quality of life and denture satisfaction were assessed within a two-week follow up using two questionnaires (OHIP-14 and DSQ). Finally, an economic cost comparison analysis was carried out between the two groups and compared to the method of constructing a new denture after collecting initial and actual cost data. Overall findings and conclusions: A total of 22 patients (11 receiving denture duplication using conventional method; and 11 receiving denture duplication using stock teeth method) were analyzed. DSQ analysis of the study groups showed a significant difference for the data pertaining to the maxillary denture satisfaction (p=0.014, Mann-Whitney U Test). OHIP-14 analysis between the different observation time points showed a statistically significant difference between the total results (p=0.010, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) and those pertaining to function (p=0.016, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) with regards to oral health related quality of life (OHrQoL). After a summation of the initial costs for each denture manufacturing method, it was found that the stock teeth denture duplication method required the cheapest initial investment (€236.59). Following this was the conventional duplication method (€245.64), and the most initially costly method was to construct the new denture (€375.10). Finally, the stock teeth denture duplication method gave the best results with an average of 48.28 ± 2.07 minutes to complete the duplication including the white work involved. The conventional method required an average of 18 minutes more in order to process and complete the whole procedure. Recommendations & implications for practice: Within limits of the study, it can be suggested that the copy denture method gave positive results with regards to OHrQoL regardless of the duplication method used. However, the stock teeth denture duplication method showed superior results with regards to the maxillary denture satisfaction presumably due to better esthetics. It must also be noted that the use of the conventional denture duplication method took a longer time to complete than the stock teeth denture duplication method.