Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Metal and Acrylic Resin Removable Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Metal removable partial dentures (RPDs) are often considered long-term treatment options for partially edentulous patients, while acrylic resin RPDs are considered interim treatments. The aim of this review was to compare metal and acrylic resin RPDs regarding patient-reported outcomes for partially edentulous individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes between metal and acrylic resin RPDs. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool (ROBINS-I) and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. The level of evidence was evaluated using Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine tool. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included in the systematic review; 10 in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size for patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life showed no statistical significant difference between metal and acrylic resin dentures (0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.01, 0.45, p = 0.06; 1.45, 95% confidence interval -2.43, 5.33, p = 0.46, respectively). Compliance with using RPDs was significantly higher in patients with metal compared to patients with acrylic resin dentures (pooled odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.45, 0.73, p < 0.001). Most studies had critical to serious risk of bias and low level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed studies showed that there was no significant difference between metal and acrylic resin RPDs in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life. Metal dentures were associated with higher patient compliance rates and were preferred more by patients compared to acrylic resin dentures. However, the reviewed studies had low levels of evidence and therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to conclusively address the question of this review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".