ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of a removable prosthesis on chewing ability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Digital Workflow for Single-Site Autogenous Bone Cylinder Augmentation and Immediate Restoration: A Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Effects of Composite Resin Teeth Versus Porcelain Teeth in Complete Dentures on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Masticatory Function, and Patient Satisfaction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of removable prostheses on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), the effects of removable prostheses on chewing ability and the effects of prosthesis type (Removable partial denture RPD versus complete denture CD) and sociodemographic factors on both chewing ability and OHRQoL. Data from 90 participants were collected using a questionnaire. Chewing ability and OHRQoL were assessed before and after treatment through questionnaires. A two-tailed α of 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were applied to identify statistically significant results in this survey. Differences between the RPD and CD treatment groups in terms of demographic variables (gender, age, income, education level, smoking status, medical history, and social connections) and previous denture experience were analysed using the Mann‒Whitney U test. Participants with RPD or CD demonstrated significant improvements in chewing ability and OHRQoL post-treatment (p < 0.05), except for females in the RPD group, who showed no significant changes. Compared with the CD group, the RPD group had significantly better chewing ability both before (p < 0.001) and after (p = 0.027) treatment. The RPD group also reported better outcomes in many aspects, including less jaw pain, greater comfort while eating, and improved denture stability (p < 0.05). Stepwise regression revealed that higher income and smoking were associated with better pre-treatment outcomes, whereas having multiple dentures and smoking predicted worse post-treatment chewing scores. Notably, higher post-treatment chewing scores were associated with improved OHRQoL. Both the RPD and CD groups reported improved chewing ability and OHRQoL, with RPD resulting in superior functional outcomes. Sociodemographic factors such as income, sex, age, and smoking habits influenced the results both before and after treatment. These findings highlight the importance of individualised patient assessment and support the clinical value of RPDs in partially edentulous patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.