Abstract:

Introduction:
Dental team managing edentulous patients consists of dentist, dental technician and auxiliary staffs. Dentist responsibility covers clinical part of management while laboratory procedures are handled by dental technician who is in charge of partial dentures’ fabrication as requested by the clinician. Dentist-technician communication is conducted using verbal order (in person or by phone), written consent, or using the internet. Currently, the exchange is easier via lab or dental clinic websites by filling a digital form of the requested work by the dentist or to receive technician’s feedback.
In daily practice, the dentist starts patient’s examination and approves the treatment plan. Then, he proceeds with clinical steps for partial denture fabrication. The first phase is to draw the design of partial denture framework on instruction form and send to the lab. Subsequently, the work is conducted by the technician who interprets and transfers the design to the working cast to form wax model and mold for casting to metal. It was observed that some dental technicians as well as dentists have difficulty in performing this skill. The dentist-technician’s relationship is founded on the capacity to produce and interpret two-dimensional design diagrams and written instructions into the three-dimensional reality on the cast of partially edentulous patient. It is essential that a dialogue between the two members of the team takes place so the expertise of both can be combined to ensure that the best outcome is achieved.
The objective of this study was to assess dental technicians and dentists’ interpretations of the two-dimensional drawing of denture design into three-dimension on partially edentulous casts.

Methodology:
Ten partially edentulous master casts were selected according to well-defined criteria. Each cast was duplicated to produce a total 100 replicas. Two lecturers with long teaching experience sketched the designs on special work order form using black design pen. Ten design forms accompanied by 10 casts with full instructions were sent to 10 dental students (50 cases for technicians and 50 for dentists) anonymously for processing the framework as usual. Four criteria were set to assess the interpretation of paper design into three-dimensional representation. The clarity, precision, correct dimensions of framework component, and drawing regularity of the design on the casts were assessed double-blindly by the same lecturers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests ( ρ<0.05).

Results:
The performance of dental degree students was weak as compared to dental technician students’ performance. The most significant findings regarding the both dental technician students and degree students were declined knowledge of components’ dimensions and form. The clarity and precision of the sketches need to be enhanced. Complicated partially edentulous cases seemed to confuse the students’ recognition ability and recombination of framework components on the cast.

Conclusion:
Emphasis on some theoretic and practical areas should be addressed to ameliorate the interpretation of dentist-technician communication. In addition, the weak areas related to the release of components’ dimension and forms reproduction should be considered during syllabus revision. More practical simulation training is necessary to enhance the instruction’s interpretation in complicated cases.

Keywords:

Teaching partial denture, two-three dimension interpretation, technical teaching of RPD.