Challenges in complete denture fabrication: Opinions and experiences of postgraduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Limited information is available on prosthodontic postgraduate studentsû views regarding complete denture education. This study aimed to investigate the opinions and experiences of Thai prosthodontic postgraduate students toward complete denture laboratory practice. Materials and methods A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all dentists who currently enrolled in prosthodontic postgraduate programs in Thailand during the academic year 2012. The questionnaire consisted of close-and open-ended questions on opinions and experiences related to laboratory work in complete denture fabrication. Results The response rate was 95 percent. Majority indicated that, among all laboratory procedures, posterior teeth arrangement was the most difficult (82%), most time-consuming (93%), and most needing an aiding device (81%). Eighty-one percent of those who indicated this step as the most difficult to perform specified that there were challenges in establishing the appropriate occlusal scheme. More than half (54%) of those who marked this step as most needing an aiding device gave the reasons that posterior teeth arrangement had several critical steps, and it requires more skill. The respondents who indicated posterior teeth setting as the most time-consuming (93.2%) spent on average 16.7 ± 14.8 hours (mean ± SD) on this step (range 1.5-63 hours). Conclusions Posterior teeth setup appears to be the most difficult step which directly corresponds with the three most common errors. The negative opinions of students toward this step indicate the aspects of complete denture training that need improvement. Novel teaching techniques should be developed to reduce common errors as well as save the time for teeth arrangement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".