Research Article
Volume 3 Issue 1 - 2018
Student Clinical Chair Time for Complete Dentures at a South African Dental School
PM Nyalunga1 and SR Mthethwa2*
1BDT, BDS. Lecturer, Department of Integrated Clinical Dentistry. School of Oral health Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University
2BDS, MPH, PhD. Senior lecturer/Stomatologist, Department of Oral Pathology & Oral Biology. School of Oral health Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University
*Corresponding Author: Sibusiso Rockfort Mthethwa, BDS, MPH, PhD. Senior lecturer/Stomatologist, Department of Oral Pathology & Oral Biology. School of Oral health Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University.
Received: April 26, 2018; Published: May 07, 2018
Abstract
Introduction: Complete denture fabrication conventionally requires 4 to 5 visits. Few studies have investigated the treatment time for complete dentures. It is widely recognised that the clinician’s experience plays a significant role on chair time required for complete denture treatment. Silversin and Shafer (1978) compared the time and methods used for complete denture construction by dental students and general dental practitioner. They found that there were differences between the time taken and number of stages employed.
Aims and objectives:  This study seeks to investigate the amount of time and number of visits that are required for complete denture construction by senior dental students at a dental school in South Africa. Demographic factors associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less were investigated using a multiple variable logistic regression model. 
Design: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study
Methods: Treatment records of sixty two patients treated by 31 senior dental students were reviewed. Each student consecutively treated two patients who were separated into two groups corresponding to the A and B groups. Data related to demographic characteristics, clinical steps of denture construction, dates and duration of visits were acquired and then captured in Microsoft excel software.
Results: The gender distribution was similar in both patient groups. Less than twenty percent (16.1%) of the patients were younger than 54 years.  A statistically significant mean difference of 54 minutes to complete the Bite registration step was observed between the groups. Students took about 11hours spaced over 5-6 visits to construct dentures. None of the demographic variables was independently associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less. 
Conclusion:  Students are inefficient at constructing dentures.
Key words: Chair time; Complete dentures; Dental school
Abbreviations: MOHC: Medunsa Oral Health Centre
Introduction and Background
The clinical and laboratory aspects, including associated problem solving, of complete dentures have been comprehensively researched. [1] Complete denture fabrication conventionally requires 4 to 5 visits. [2,3] The two most common ways of fabricating complete dentures are the traditional method and the simplified method. [4,5]
The traditional method, which uses more complex techniques, is taught in most dental schools. [6] It involves the following clinical stages:  an anatomic and functional impression, the use of a semi-adjustable articulator with a face bow, wax evaluation, and occlusal adjustment in a semi-adjustable articulator. [4]
The simplified method is any alternative method that eliminates any of the stages of the traditional method. [4] Simplified methods are used by most general dentists to treat patients who are edentulous as they reduce the number of visits and the time required to make the prostheses. [7,8] The simplified method for complete denture fabrication has been found to restore masticatory function to a level comparable to a conventional protocol, both physiologically and according to patient's perceptions. [8]
Few studies have investigated the treatment time for complete dentures. [9-11] It is widely recognised that the clinician’s experience plays a significant role on chair time required for complete denture treatment. Sato and colleagues studied the effects of the clinician’s experience on chair time required for complete denture treatment in Japan. [12] They found that chair time required by prosthodontic specialists was shorter than that required by non-prosthodontic specialists. Furthermore, Silversin and Shafer compared the time and methods used for complete denture construction by dental students and general dental practitioners. They found that there were differences between the time taken and the number of stages employed by students and practitioners. [9]
Techniques to minimize complete denture procedures to four visits or less have been described. These include a three-visit technique utilising visible light-cured resin for tray and base plate construction. [13]
At Medunsa Oral Health Centre (MOHC), a dental school and referral hospital, in Garankuwa on the outskirts of Pretoria, South Africa, dental students are assigned complete denture patients under faculty supervision according to the degree of difficulty of treatment from the third-year level onwards. In the fifth year of study, students are required to construct a minimum of two sets of complete dentures in the comprehensive care clinic. They do not do the laboratory work.
This study seeks to investigate the amount of time and number of visits that are required for complete denture construction by senior dental students at Medunsa Oral Health Centre.
Objectives of the Study
To determine the time taken for complete denture fabrication by senior dental students at MOHC to determine the mean number of visits necessary to obtain a set of complete dentures from senior dental students at MOHC and compare this to the conventional mean of 4 to 5 visits to identify demographic factors associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less
Materials and Methods
Study design. 
This was a cross-sectional descriptive study
Target population
The study population consisted of treatment records of adult patients who received a set of complete dentures at Medunsa Oral Health Centre following treatment by senior dental students in the 2015 academic year.
Study sample
Treatment records of convenient sample of sixty two patients were studied.
Measurements
Medical records
Treatment records of sixty two edentulous adult patients treated by 31 final year dental students during the 2015 academic year were reviewed. Each student treated two patients who were separated into two groups corresponding to the A and B groups. Data related to demographic characteristics, clinical steps of denture construction, dates and duration of visits were acquired and then captured in Microsoft excel software.
Definition of variables and terms
Age and Gender refer to patient age and sex as recorded in treatment records. Senior dental students refers to final year dental students chair time is the amount of time a patient spends in the dental chair for treatment. Chair time was measured from when the session started until a clinical step was completed. A visit refers to a two hours long clinic session hospital classification system is a system of classifying patients based on individual or household annual income for the determination of fees. Patients qualifying for full subsidisation: H0. Patients qualifying for partial subsidisation: H1, H2 &H3. [14]
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University. Permission to conduct the study was granted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Medunsa Oral Health Centre.
Statistical Analysis/Hypothesis Testing
Collected data was subjected to univariate, bivariate and multivariate analysis in Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) software. Frequencies, proportions and means were calculated. The one sample t-test was performed to test whether the mean number of visits necessary to obtain a conventional complete set of dentures from senior dental students at MOHC was equal to the conventional mean of 4 to 5 visits in any of the groups.
The unpaired (two sample) t-test was performed to test whether the mean number of visits necessary to obtain a conventional complete set of dentures from senior dental students at MOHC in the two groups was equal.
A logistic regression model was used to identify demographic factors associated with receiving dentures in five visits or less. The binary outcome of interest was receiving dentures in five visits or less (Yes/No). The factors investigated included gender, age, marital status, hospital classification (a proxy for socioeconomic status) and province of residence.
Results
Data of a convenient sample of 62 recipients of a set of complete conventional dentures was analysed.
Demographic characteristics of the patient groups
Age groups Gender
Female n (%) Male n (%)
Group A Group B Group A Group B
25-34 0(0) 1(6.7) 0(0) 1(6.3)
35-44 0(0) 0(0) 1(6.3) 1(6.3)
45-54 0(0) 2 (13.3) 2(12.5) 2(12.5)
55-64 4(26.7) 1(6.7) 4(25) 5(31.3)
65-74 9(60) 7(46.7) 7(43.8) 5(31.3)
75+ 2(13.3) 4 (26.7) 2(12.5) 2(12.5)
Total 15(100) 15(100) 16(100) 16(100)
The gender distribution was similar in both patient groups. Less than twenty percent (16.1%) of the patients were younger than 54 years. Twenty percent of Group B female patients were younger than 55 years.
Table 1: Distribution of patient groups by age groups and gender.
Province of residence Patient groups n (%) Total
Group A Group B
Gauteng 19(43.2) 25(56.8) 44(100)
Mpumalanga 3(100) 0(0) 3(100)
North West 9(60) 6(40) 15(100)
Total 31(50) 31(50) 62(100)
The bulk of patients in both groups (61.3% in group A and 80.7% in group B) resided in Gauteng province. Approximately one in ten (9.7%) of group A patients resided in Mpumalanga province.
Table 2: Frequency distribution of patient groups by province of residence.
Marital status Patient groups n (%) Total
Group A Group B
Divorced 2(66.7) 1(33.3) 3(100)
Married 18(60) 12(40) 30(100)
Single 8(34.8) 15(65.2) 23(100)
Widow 3(50) 3(50) 6(100)
Total 31(50) 31(50) 62(100)
Just less than half (48.4%) of the study sample were married. Single patients constituted 37.1%.
Table 3: Frequency distribution of patient groups by marital status.
Hospital classification Patient groups n (%) Total
Group A Group B
H1 7(50) 7(50) 14(100)
H2 4(80) 1(20) 5(100)
H0 20(48.8) 21(51.2) 41(100)
P (Correctional services) 0(0) 2(100) 2(100)
Total 31(50) 31(50) 62(100)
Just less than two thirds (66.1%) of the patients were exempted from paying user fees.
Table 4: Frequency distribution of patient groups by hospital classification.
Total Visits Patient groups n (%) Total
Group A Group B
3 2(100) 0(0) 2(100)
4 4(44.4) 5(55.6) 9(100)
5 11(52.4) 10(47.6) 21(100)
6 7(53.8) 6(46.2) 13(100)
7 2(33.3) 4(66.7) 6(100)
8 2(100) 0(0) 2(100)
9 1(50) 1(50) 2(100)
10 2(50) 2(50) 4(100)
11 0(0) 2(100) 2(100)
12 0(0) 1(100) 1(100)
Total 31(50) 31(50) 62(100)
A little more than half (51.6%) of the patients visited the clinic five times or less. Similar numbers of patients from both groups (14 in group A and 13 in group B) made between six and ten visits to the clinic. Just less than ten percent (3/31) of group B patients visited the clinic eleven times or more.
Table 5: Frequency and percentage of patient visits by group.
Conventional number of visits Mean number of visits Standard deviation Test statistic, t p-value 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
µ = 4 5.74 1.770 5.481 0.000 1.09 -2.39
µ = 5 5.74 1.770 2.334 0.026 0.09 -1.39
There was substantial evidence (p < 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis that the mean number of visits to the hospital was equal to the conventional numbers of visits. The lower range of the confidence interval of the difference between the mean number of patient visits and the conventional mean number of five visits indicates that the true difference may be very small.
Table 6: Tests of whether the mean number of visits made by group A patients to the clinic was equal to the conventional numbers of visits.
Conventional number of visits Mean number of visits Standard deviation Test statistic, t p-value 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
µ = 4 6.35 2.288 5.730 0.000 1.52 - 3.19
µ = 5 6.35 2.288 3.296 0.003 0.52 - 2.19
There was strong evidence (p < 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis that the mean number of visits to the clinic was equal to the conventional numbers of visits.
Table 7: Tests of whether the mean number of visits made by group B patients to the clinic was equal to the conventional numbers of visits.
Mean number of visits Standard deviation Test statistic, t p-value 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
5.74 1.770 -1.180 0.243 -1.652 - 0.426
6.35 2.288
There was insufficient evidence (p > 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of patient visits to the clinic were equal
Table 8: Tests of whether the mean number of visits to the clinic made by the two patient groups was equal.
Clinical step Patient groups Mean amount of time Std. Deviation Test statistic, t p-value 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Examination and primary impression Group A 2:29:01,94 1:08:50,438 0.035 0.984 -0:36:27,71 - 0:37:45,128
Group B 2:28:23,23 1:16:59,992
Secondary impression Group A 1:54:19,35 0:57:45,258 1.198 0.252 -0:10:08,45 - 0:40:23,930
Group B 1:39:11,61 0:40:08,855
Bite registration Group A 1:43:48,39 0:42:37,690 -2.927 0.001 -1:29:55,90 - -0:16:54,42
Group B 2:37:13,55 1:32:15,515
Try- in Group A 2:09:19,35 1:22:57,913 -.722 0.456 -1:02:03,68 - 0:29:09,483
Group B 2:25:46,45 1:36:05,575
Final fit A 2:12:13,55 1:17:03,394 -1.030 0.275 -1:06:24,85 - 0:21:15,175
B 2:34:48,39 1:34:35,810
Table 9: Tests of whether the mean amount of time taken to complete clinical steps was equal in the two groups.
The mean amount of time taken to complete the Examination and primary impression and the Secondary impression clinical steps in group A patients was longer than that for group B patients. The differences were not, however, statistically significant. The mean amount of time taken to complete the Try- in and Final fit clinical steps in group B patients was longer than that for group A patients. The differences were not, however, statistically significant. A mean difference of 54 minutes in the amount of time taken to complete the Bite registration clinical step between the patients in groups A and B was observed. This mean difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Patient groups Mean overall time Standard deviation Test statistic, t p-value 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Group A 10:28:42.58 3:28:32.738 -1.260 0.213 -3:18:24.670 - 0:45:03.379
Group B 11:45:23.23 4:27:03.772
A mean overall time difference of 76 minutes for complete denture construction was observed between the patients in groups A and B. This mean difference was not, however, statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Table 10: Tests of whether the mean overall time taken for complete denture construction was equal in the two groups.
Variable Parameter estimate Standard error Wald Chi-square p-value Estimated odds ratio Odds Ratio (95% CI)
Intercept 222.393 90209.510 .000 .998 3.837E+96  
Gender (1) -1.028 20888.347 .000 1.000 .358 .000
Age -.509 1600.268 .000 1.000 .601 .000
Marital status     .000 1.000    
Marital status (1) -16.759 61775.532 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Marital status (2) -25.842 29625.001 .000 .999 .000 .000
Marital status (3) -16.625 30497.033 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Hospital classification     .000 1.000    
Hospital classification (1) -15.137 31269.950 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Hospital classification (2) -30.254 43385.708 .000 .999 .000 .000
Hospital classification (3) -10.510 31814.193 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Province of residence     .000 1.000    
Province of residence(1) -6.439 26136.076 .000 1.000 .002 .000
Province of residence(2) -21.410 34581.361 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Group(1) 12.464 17737.410 .000 .999 258725.046 .000
Table 11: Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less in the study population.
The results indicated that none of the demographic variables investigated was independently associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less
Discussion
This study set out to determine the chair time for complete denture fabrication by senior dental students and to test the hypothesis that the mean number of patient’s visits required was equal to the conventional mean number of visits i.e. 4 to 5 visits.
Demographic characteristics
The results of this study indicate that patient groups were similar in terms of gender distribution. This result differ from some published studies which found that edentulism is more prevalent in women. [15,16] A possible explanation for this result might be that students were assigned patients in a non-random manner.
The current study found that less than twenty percent (16.1%) of all patients were younger than 54 years. The study has been unable to demonstrate that edentulism is a serious problem in the 35 – 44 years age group in contrast to the findings of the latest national oral health survey which reported a prevalence of 12.6%. [17] The overall prevalence of edentulism in South Africa has been reported to range between 8.5% and 10.3%. [16,18] The level of edentulism in adults younger, and those older than 50 years, was found to be 8.2% and 15.3% respectively. [18] A possible explanation for the low number of edentulous patients younger than 54 years of age at MOHC might be the fact that the provincial government subsidises a denture service for poor adults sixty years and older. [14] The results of this study show that patients who visit MOHC are drawn from the adjacent provinces of Gauteng, North West, and Mpumalanga. This is not unexpected as MOHC is a dental school and referral hospital.
The current study found that a little under half (48.4%) of the study sample were married. Single patients constituted 37.1%. These results differ from those reported by Riberio and collegues. [19] They found that edentulism was more prevalent among widowed elderly patients aged sixty years and older in Brazil.
The results of this study show that just less than two thirds of the patients were exempted from paying user fees. This is not surprising considering the fact that government hospitals exempt the elderly from paying user fees. User fees have been shown to deter utilisation of public sector health services when needed, particularly among the poorest in African countries. [20]
Number of visits necessary to obtain complete dentures
The most interesting finding was that just less than half (48.4%) of the patients visited the clinic six times or more which was significantly higher than the highest conventional number of visits taken by a dentist to complete a set of dentures. This finding was not unexpected. Dental school clinics are generally recognised to be inefficient: Treatment is provided by students according to their level of training under faculty supervision, and treatment times are longer than would be experienced in private dental practices. [21]
Another important finding was that the difference in the mean number of visits between the groups was not statistically significant. These results are consistent with other research which found that students took 5-6 visits to complete a set of dentures. [9]   
The time taken for complete denture fabrication
There is a dearth of literature on the topic of time and methods used for complete denture construction by dental students. This is an important issue for future research. The results of the current study were compared to the seminal work by Silverson and colleagues. [9]
The results of this study show that students took about 11 hours to fabricate dentures. This result differs substantially from previous research which found that students in Great Britain took about 4½ hours. [9] The reason for this is not clear but it may have to do with the generally recognized nonproductive clinical activity due to such limitations as lengthy waits for instructors and materials, lack of auxiliary staff, poor scheduling systems, and general red tape built into the teaching system. [21] These results therefore need to be interpreted with caution.
The average time that students take in the clinical steps of denture fabrication has not previously been described. The current study found that with the exception of impressions, students took longer to complete clinical steps in group B patients compared with group A patients. The differences in the average time for most clinical steps were not, however statistically significant. The most interesting finding was that the difference in the average time to complete bite registration step was statistically significant. This finding was contrary to expectations. One would expect that with the experience gained from fabricating dentures for patients at the same level of difficulty, the students would take a short amount of time to complete the bite registration step for group B patients.
Demographic variables associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less
The results of this study indicate that none of the investigated demographic variables was independently associated with receiving dentures in six visits or less.  A possible explanation for this might be that the variables are highly correlated. As a consequence, whilst each variable may be significantly associated with the dependent variable in a univariable model, they are not significantly associated with it when they are all included in a multivariable model. The substantially large standard errors of regression coefficients in the multivariate model suggest collinearity. [22]
Limitations of the study
The amount of time wasted in nonproductive clinical activity was not measured.
Conclusion
Students are inefficient at constructing dentures.
References
  1. McCord JF and Grant AA. “Identification of complete denture problems: a summary”. British Dental Journal 189.3 (2000): 128-134.
  2. Rodrigues AH and Morgano SM. “An expedited technique for remaking a single complete denture for an edentulous patient”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 98.3 (2007): 232-244.
  3. Murthy SS., et al. “Complete Denture Fabrication for Old Denture Wearer in One Day”. World Journal of Dentistry 3.1 (2012): 112-114.
  4. Paulino MR., et al. “Simplified versus traditional techniques for complete denture fabrication: A systematic review”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 113.1 (2015): 12-16.
  5. Ye Y and Sun J. “Simplified Complete Denture: A Systematic Review of the Literature”. Journal of Prosthodontics 26.4 (2017): 267-274.
  6. Clark RKF., et al. “Summary of: Current trends in complete denture teaching in British dental schools”. British Dental Journal (2010).
  7. Heydecke G., et al. “Simplified versus comprehensive fabrication of complete dentures: patient ratings of denture satisfaction from a randomized crossover Trial”. Quintessence International 39.2 (2008): 107-116.
  8. Cunha TR., et al. “A randomised trial on simplified and conventional methods for complete denture fabrication: masticatory performance and ability. Journal of Dentistry 41.2 (2013): 133-142.
  9. Silversin JB., et al. “Time and methods used for complete denture construction in dental students and general dental practitioners in Great Britain in 1972”. Journal of Dentistry 6.3 (1978): 196–200.
  10. Takanashi Y., et al. “Does a Prosthodontist Spend More Time Providing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures than Conventional Dentures?” The International Journal of Prosthodontics 15.4 (2002): 397-403.
  11. Hobkirk JA., et al. “Prosthetic treatment time and satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with conventional or implant-stabilized complete mandibular dentures: a case-control study (part 2)”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 22.1 (2009): 13-19.
  12. Sato Y., et al. “Effect of Clinician's Experience and Degree of Difficulty on Chair Time for Complete Denture Treatment”. Journal: Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi 52.4 (2008): 457-464.
  13. Ling BC. “A three-visit, complete-denture technique utilizing visible light-cured resin for tray and base plate construction”. 35.4 (2004): 294-298.
  14. Department of Health. Explanation of the Current Policy Regarding the Classification of Patients for the Determination of Fees. (2018).
  15. Emami E., et al. “The Impact of Edentulism on Oral and General Health”. International Journal of Dentistry (2013).
  16. Ayo-Yusuf OA and Ayo-Yusuf IJ. “Association of tooth loss with hypertension”. South African Medical Journal 98.5 (2008): 381-385.
  17. Van Wyk PJ and Van Wyk C. “Oral health in South Africa”. International Dental Journal 54.S6 (2004): 373–377.
  18. Peltzer K., et al. “Prevalence of Loss of All Teeth (Edentulism) and Associated Factors in Older Adults in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11.11 (2014): 11308-11324.
  19. Ribeiro CG., et al. :Edentulism, Severe Tooth Loss and Lack of Functional Dentition in Elders: A Study in Southern Brazil”. Brazilian Dental Journal 27.3 (2016): 345-352.
  20. Araoyinbo ID and Ataguba J E. “User fees in Africa: from theory and evidence,what next?” An essay submitted to the African Health Economics and Policy Association (AFHEA) (2017).  
  21. Formicola AJ., et al. “Evolution of dental school clinics as patient care delivery centres”. Journal of Dental Education 72. S2 (2006) 110-117.
  22. Petrie A and Sabien C. Medical Statistics at a Glance 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, (2005).
Citation: PM Nyalunga and SR Mthethwa. “Student Clinical Chair Time for Complete Dentures at a South African Dental School”. Oral Health and Dentistry 3.1 (2018): 532-541.
Copyright: © 2018 PM Nyalunga and SR Mthethwa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.