Quality of written communication and master impressions for fabrication of removable partial prostheses in the Kingdom of Bahrain

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 34; no. 2; pp. 153 - 157
• Main Authors: RADHI, A., LYNCH, C. D., HANNIGAN, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.02.2007
• Subjects: acrylic; Acrylic Resins; Bahrain; Chromium Alloys; cobalt chromium; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique - instrumentation; Dental Impression Technique - standards; dental laboratories; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design - standards; Dentistry; Denture, Partial, Removable; design; Humans; impressions; Information Dissemination; Interdisciplinary Communication; Literature; prosthesis; Prosthodontics - standards; removable partial dentures; Bahrain
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01685.x

summary   The aim of this study was to examine the quality of written instructions and choice of impression trays and materials for removable partial dentures (RPDs) in the Kingdom of Bahrain. All six private dental laboratories in Bahrain were contacted and invited to participate in the study. Five laboratories participated, and submitted written instructions received by them for fabrication of both acrylic (A‐RPDs) and cobalt‐chromium (CC‐RPDs) RPDs. These were examined for evidence of selected design variables. Types of impression trays and materials used were also recorded. One hundred and thirty‐one written instructions were examined. Eleven percent (n = 14) were for CC‐RPDs, 89% (n = 117) for A‐RPDs. All treatments were provided on a private basis. Fifty‐seven percent (n =1 8) of CC‐RPD instructions requested the technician to design the prosthesis, 43% (n = 6) contained a diagram and 43% (n = 6) mentioned all design variables. Seventy‐nine percent (n = 92) of A‐RPDs requested the technician to design the denture, and only 1% (n = 1) mentioned all design variables. Alginate impression material was most commonly used for master impressions (83% of impressions (n = 109); 85% (n = 99) of A‐RPDs, and 71% (n = 10) of CC‐RPDs). Master casts were poured after a minimum of 24 h. Acrylic custom trays were used in 14% (n = 19) of cases (43% (n = 6) of CC‐RPDs; 13% (n = 15) of A‐RPDs). The quality of written instructions to dental laboratories for the fabrication of RPDs was found to be inadequate in Kingdom of Bahrain. There was widespread use of inappropriate impression trays and materials.