Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025
Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025
Efficiency of simplified versus traditional denture fabrication methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Vinita Sanjeevan1, Praveen Rajagopal2, Ramanarayanan Venkitachalam3
1Senior Lecturer, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim, North Goa, Goa, India.
Statement Of Problem:
Conventional techniques (CTs) for complete denture fabrication involve a series of clinical and laboratory steps. A simplification of this process has been advocated, but whether simplified techniques result in acceptable treatment outcomes is unclear.
Purpose:
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficiency of simplified denture fabrication techniques in comparison with CTs.
Material And Methods:
The standard methodological procedures prescribed by the Cochrane Collaboration for systematic review and meta-analysis were used. An electronic search (MEDLINE through PubMed, Cochrane trial registry, and Scopus) and a manual search up to February 2020 were made to identify studies. Only randomized controlled trials involving edentulous adults requiring complete denture treatment were included.
Results:
Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of the included studies for patient satisfaction at 6 months marginally favored the simplified method of denture fabrication (standardized mean difference=0.02 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.22 to 0.27]). The pooled estimate of the included studies for clinical time and cost of fabrication favored the simplified method (mean difference=-77.34 [95% CI -122.45 to -32.24] and mean difference=-85.89 [95% CI -170.02 to -1.77] respectively).
Conclusions:
Simplified techniques were cost effective and less time consuming than the CT, with no significant difference in patient satisfaction or oral health-related quality of life. The high risk of bias and heterogeneity among studies requires that the results be considered cautiously.
