Review Article
Relevance of Variations in the Opposing Dentition for the Functionality of Fixed and Removable Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review
Table 8
Effect of removable denture on eating habits.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aRating scheme from 1 (positive) to 4 (negative) with 13 test foods (Hard rolls, French or Italian bread, Pot roast, Steak, Salami, Fried clams, Fried chicken, Raw carrots, Celery, Cole slaw, Cucumbers, Apples, and Peanuts), mean values calculated per patient and group, no variance given. bPercentage of patients answering “yes” to the question. cNo variance given. dHow often and how much hard (Pork, Beef, Raw Vegetables, Apples, Pears, Wholemeal bread, and Crisp bread) and soft (Cod-fish, Herring, Minced meat, Boiled vegetables, Sausages, and Bananas) food was eaten in a month. The eating habits of the participant showing the least impairment in instrumental measurement of masticatory efficiency were defined as 100%. CD: complete denture, FPD: fixed partial denture, IFP: implant-supported fixed prostheses, ND: natural dentition, RD: residual dentition, RPD: removable partial denture, n/a: not available. |