Results:
A total of 110 patients were recruited in this study. Study has very evidently shown the gender difference of the patients who were examined for their RPDs. Analysis showed that more than 50% of the patients were male while about 40% odd patients were of female gender as shown in figure 1. Ratio of male to female patients was also inferred and it was found that ratio was 1.3: 1 which means that slight more male patients reported compared to female ones.
Get Help With Your Nursing Essay
If you need assistance with writing your nursing essay, our professional nursing essay writing service is here to help!
When it comes to the age of the patient our study has analyzed this variable. The mean age for patients included in the study was found to be 43years with a standard deviation of 11. For convenience four age groups were made which are 0 to 20 years, 21 to 40 years 41 to 60 years and lastly any patients above 60 years. It is very much clear that majority of the patients were of age groups 21 to 40 years and 41 to 60 years with only 4 patients were of age above 60 years as evident in figure 2.
Our study has also reported about the Arch of RPD in patients who were thoroughly examined for their RPDs. It was found that almost equal patients were found with upper and lower arch precisely 52% with upper arch and 48% with lower arch as reported in figure 3.
Site of arch in patients included in the study was also studied and it was found that in 44 patients site of arch was right while it was on the left in 40 patients with only 25 patients having bilateral site of arch as shown in figure 4.
Kennedy classification was also observed in patients studied in the research activity. It was found that majority of the patients were found in Kennedy classification type III (62%) while 25% and 22% of the patients were found in Kennedy classification type I and II respectively. This can be visualized in figure 5.
Another important variable that was observed in the study was duration for which patients worn prosthesis at time of examination in this study. It was mandatory that patients must have worn prosthesis for atleast one year so that they may be included in the study. As it is evident in the graph that majority of the patients, 75 patients were found in group of 1 to 5 years while 30 patients were in group 6 to 10 year while least number that is 4 and 1 were found in group 11 to 15 years and 16 to 20 years and above. This is shown in figure 6.
The prevalence of retention reported as a complication in literature in patients studied in the research work. Pie chart is clearly showing that prevalence of retention as a complication of wearing RPD is about 62% while on the contrary 48% of the patients wearing RPD do not have retention problem due to wearing of RPD as shown in figure 7.
Our study has reported prevalence of stability in RPD wearers. A least number of patience reported stability as a complication of wearing RPD and it was found that only 26% of patients were having problem of stability due to wearing of RPD while 74% of patients do not have any stability issues. This is very much seen in figure 8.
Our study has also shown the Prevalence of support in patients wearing RPD is about 31% while 69% of patients did not reported support as a complication of wearing RPD, this can be seen in figure 9.
This study has found the prevalence of pain/discomfort due to wearing of RPD. It was found that about 29% of patients have some sort of pain/discomfort due to wearing of RPD while 71% of patients do not have any sort of pain or discomfort due to wearing of RPD as shown in figure 10.
Our study has also reported the prevalence of Mucosal changes in patients wearing RPD. Pie chart shows that prevalence of mucosal changes is about 35% while 65% of patients did not report of any sort of mucosal changes after wearing RPD as reported in figure 11.
The prevalence of Abutment Loss as a complication of wearing RPD was also observed in our study. It was observed as evident in the pie char that 27% of patients were found to have abutment loss due to wearing RPD while 73% of patients did not have any abutment loss due to wearing of RPD and this can be visualized in figure 12.
Satisfaction among patients with regard to design of prosthesis was also one of the variables in our study. Out of 110 patients assessed in the study it was found that majority of the patients, (106), were found satisfied with the design of their prosthesis while only 4 patients had some sort of resentment and were not satisfied as evident in figure 13.
Our study has shown prevalence of appearance problem in patients wearing RPD. It was seen that again majority of the patients, more than 90% did not complain of any appearance problem due to wearing of RPD. Only 8% of patients complain of some appearance problem while wearing an RPD and this can be seen in figure 14.
Another important variable that was studied in our study was the existence of speech/phonetic problem occurring as a complication of wearing of RPD. Research has found that the prevalence of speech problems in patients wearing RPD is 16%. On the other hand 84% of study population did not complain of any speech related problem and this is shown in figure 15.
Our study has also reported patients studied in the research activity that was observed to have pocketing at the time of examination. It shows that prevalence of pocketing is 79% while 21% of patients did not have pocketing at the time of examination as evident in figure 16.
Prevalence of Calculus/Plaque in patients who underwent treatment with an RPD is indeed a very important variable that was studied in our study. It was found that prevalence of calculus/plaque is about 90% i.e. 99 patients out of 110 patients had some degree of calculus or plaque at the time of examination while about 10% of patients were free of calculus of plaque as can be seen in figure 17.
Our study has also reported the prevalence of Mobility occurring as a complication of wearing an RPD. Study has shown that about 47% of patients included in the study were observed to have some sort of mobility problem while 53% of patients were free of mobility and this can be seen in figure 18.
Another variable of our study which is prevalence of gingival recession, one of the complications observed in patients wearing RPD. It was noted that the prevalence of gingival recession in patients wearing RPD is more than 50% i.e. 58% of patients were observed to have gingival recession while 42% of patients were free of this complication as reported in figure 19.
Our study has also reported evidence regarding the prevalence of Caries in RPD Wearers. It seems that majority of the patients had developed caries due to wearing of RPD and due to this the prevalence of caries is high. About 65% of patients developed caries after wearing RPDs. On the other hand 35% of patients were found free of caries. This is very much evident in figure 20.
Prevalence of Artificial teeth fracture due to wearing of RPD was also studied in our study. It was seen that none of the patients developed artificial teeth fracture as a complication of wearing an RPD as shown in figure 21.
Denture base fracture, another variable of our study was also reported. It was found that a very least number of patients (07) developed denture base fracture after wearing RPD. While 103 patients out of 110 patients did not developed denture base fracture due to wearing of RPD as clearly shown in figure 22.
Our study has also focused on Clasp fracture or deformation due to wearing of RPD and found that out of 110 patients 103 (94%) patients were free of any clasp fracture or deformation at the time of examination while only 7 (6%) of patients wearing RPD were having clasp fracture of deformation. This is very much clear in figure 23.
Prevalence of Discolouration in patients using RPDs was also witnessed by our study and It wass observed that discolouration as a complication in patients wearing RPDs is prevalent in 49% of patients while 51% of patients were found free of discolouation as shown in figure 24.
Study has also focused and reported prevalence of wearing of artificial teeth in patients treated with RPD. A least number of patients i.e. 9% were found prevalent with wearing of artificial teeth while 91% were free of complication of wearing of artificial teeth. This can be seen in figure 25.
Figure 1 Gender analysis of the patients examined for their RPDs:
Figure 2 Age of the patients included in the study:
Figure 3 Pie chart showing Arch of RPD in patients included in the study:
Figure 4 Graph showing site of arch in patients wearing RPD:
Figure 5 Kennedy Classification of RPDs in patients included in the study:
Figure 6 Figure showing time duration of wearing of RPDs:
Figure 7 Figure showing the prevalence of retention in the study population
Figure 8 Prevalence of Stability as a complication of wearing RPD:
Figure 9 Prevalence of Support in patients wearing RPD:
Figure 10 Prevalence of Pain/ Discomfort in patients wearing RPD:
Figure 11 Pie Chart showing Prevalence of Mucosal Changes in patients wearing RPD:
Figure 12 Pie Chart showing the Prevalence of Abutment Loss in patients wearing RPD
Figure 13 Figure showing satisfaction level among patients wearing RPD
Figure 14 Prevalence of Appearance Problem in patients wearing RPD
Figure 15 Prevalence of Speech/Phonetic Problem in patients wearing an RPD
Figure 16 Prevalence of Pocketing in patients wearing RPD
Figure 17 Prevalence of Calculus in patients wearing RPD
Figure 18 Prevalence of Mobility in patients wearing RPD
Figure 19 Prevalence of Gingival Recession in patients wearing RPD
Figure 20 Prevalence of Caries in RPD wearers
Figure 21 Graph showing occurrence of artificial tooth fracture in patients wearing RPD
Figure 22 Bar graph showing patients who developed denture base fracture due to wearing RPD
Figure 23 showing the patients who developed Clasp fracture or deformation due to RPD wearing
Figure 24 Pie Chart showing Prevalence of Discolouration in patients treated with RPD
Figure 25 Figure showing Prevalence of wearing of artificial teeth in patients wearing RPD
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
