Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
A Structured Rehabilitation Protocol for Improved Multifunctional Prosthetic Control: A Case Study
Published on: November 6, 2015
Comparison between Distal Extension Attachment-retained Removable Partial Prostheses with Integrated and Conventional
Maria Raafat Reslan1, Essam Osman1, Lucette Segaan2
1Department of Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Lebanon.
Aim:
To compare marginal bone level (MBL) around the abutments in integrated and conventional reciprocation designs in attachment-retained removable partial prosthesis (A-RPP).
Materials And Methods:
Around 14 participants were indiscriminately selected and separated into two groups. For every group, an A-RPP with one of the studied reciprocation types was fabricated and assessed. Group I received A-RPP with integrated reciprocation and group II received A-RPP with conventional reciprocation. MBL around the crowned primary and secondary abutments was assessed on the day of A-RPP insertion, at 6 and at 9 months of denture use.
Results:
Comparison of MBL values at the primary and secondary abutments within each group showed no statistical difference from time of delivery and throughout the study. After using the A-RPP for 6 and 9 months, group I revealed lower mean values of MBL than group II which were statistically significant.
Conclusion:
Distal extension A-RPP with integrated and conventional reciprocation designs were associated with raise in bone loss. Integrated reciprocation design revealed a lesser amount of bone loss than the conventional reciprocation design and therefore, it is considered as more preferable to be used.
Clinical Significance:
Distal extension A-RPP with integrated reciprocation is superior in terms of periodontium preservation around abutment teeth as compared to distal extension A-RPD with conventional reciprocation.
