Pagine 574-579, Lingua: IngleseOwall / JonssonPurpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the techniques, production problems, and 2-year results of attachment-retained removable partial denture (RPD) treatment provided by general practitioners in Sweden. Materials and Methods: At a major dental laboratory, consecutive cases involving new production of crowns, or of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and RPDs retained with precision attachments, were studied. Parameters of the dentition, crown or FPD, type and brand of attachment, etc, as well as early satisfaction by dentist and patient, were recorded using specially designed forms at the dental laboratory and questionnaires for the dentists. After 2 years, questionnaires were again sent out to the dentists to record complications and patients' and dentists' opinions of the results. The sample gathered totaled 83 constructions. After 2 years, responses for 57 patients, all of whom had distal-extension RPDs, were received. Most drop-outs in the study were explicable. Results: The most frequently cited reasons for using attachments were esthetics and need for crowning the teeth abutting the RPD. McCollum rigid slide attachment was the pred ominant brand used (43% of constructions). Dentists and patients were dissatisfied with 6% of the constructions. During the first 2 years, 22 of 57 constructions were complication-free. Seventeen had attachment complications and 9 had serious complications related to the abutment teeth or RPDs. A comparison between these 2 groups revealed that those with complications had every second abutment root-canal treated and a root post, while the group without complications had every fifth abutment root-canal treated. Conclusion: There were many technical and biotechnical complications and failures; the exact ratio, however, depended on the definition of complications and failure. The 2-year results also deviated considerably from the dentists' opinions of the early results.
