Relevance of Variations in the Opposing Dentition for the Functionality of Fixed and Removable Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review

Table 7

Effect of fixed denture on eating habits.

Study	Question	Kennedy Class	Gap width/; Residual dentition	Opposing dentition	Age of prosthesis; in month (range)	Result
Prospective interventional trials
Ueda et al., 1993 [17]	Masticatory efficiency improvement by the use of implants?	I (21.4%); II (42.9%); III (7.1%); IV (28.6%)		ND (37.0%)^a		+39.5^a,b
			n/a	RPD (29.6%)^a	n/a (6.8–10)	+48.8^a,b
				IFP (33.4%)^a		+62.5^a,b

^aData given only for partially edentulous and edentulous patients combined.
^bRating system: for each of the 20 Japanese test meals (Bean curd, Boiled rice with tea, Noodles, Pudding, Lettuce, Shrimp tempura, Sliced cucumber, Boiled fish paste, Tender steak, Pickled radish, Herring roe, Cookie, Cracker, Rice cake cubes, Sliced raw cuttlefish, Salami, Dried cuttlefish, Chewing gum, Biting on an apple, and Biting off a cotton thread) 5 points are allocated if the patient is able to chew it (100 points maximum). The average difference between preoperative and postoperative examination was calculated (positive values represent a better postoperative result).
IFP: implant-supported fixed prostheses, ND: natural dentition, RPD: removable partial denture, n/a: not available.