The treatment outcome from a cantilevered bridge attracted the highest mean utility value. Participants did not value implant treatment as highly as fixed bridgework, but they did rate the utility of implants more highly than the utility value of removable dentures. However, the patients placed a very low value on the outcome from 'no' treatment. Thus, the appropriateness of the shortened dental arch as an oral health goal can be questioned.

Objectives: The aim of this survey was to determine how a sample of dentists working in general dental practice in the UK sought to restore the mouths of patients who had shortened dental arches (SDAs). Study design: A survey was conducted over a period of six months on four commercial dental laboratories. Cases of SDAs comprising the anterior teeth and 2 to 4 premolars were examined; dental prescriptions were scrutinized and a special data collection form was completed accordingly. Results: A total of 140 SDA cases were examined. Most of these cases were for mandibular SDAs (88.6%). Of the recorded SDA cases, 67.2% were restored by cobalt-chromium based removable partial dentures (RPD); 25.7% were extended by acrylic-resin based RPDs; implants were provided to restore 8 SDA cases (5.7%); and only two SDA cases (1.4%) were extended by cantilevered fixed bridges. Neither the gender of the patient ([Chi (2)= 4.19, p>0.05) nor the length of the SDA ([Chi (2) = 6.51, p>0.05) influenced the choice of prosthesis to be implemented. Conclusions: It would appear from the results of this survey that among the different restorative treatment options for SDA, the RPD was the most popular treatment option for dentists surveyed in this UK study. Extending the SDA by either an implant-supported prosthesis or cantilevered fixed bridges did not appear to be a popular choice of treatment.

The aim of this survey was to investigate the quality of prescription for the fabrication of cobalt chromium removable partial dentures (RPDs) that are used to extend the shortened dental arches (SDAs). A survey of four commercial dental laboratories located in northern England was conducted. The target of this survey was cobalt chromium RPDs that were requested to restore SDAs comprising the anterior teeth and 2-4 premolars. Dentists' prescriptions were scrutinised, and a special data collection form was completed accordingly. A total of 94 dentists' prescriptions and associated SDA casts were examined. Almost all the requested cobalt chromium RPDs were clasp-retained RPDs (97%). Scrutinising the 91 prescriptions for clasp-retained cobalt chromium RPDs showed that dentists' prescriptions did not have any instructions about the design of the partial denture in a considerable proportion of the cases (32%). Teeth to be clasped were identified clearly in 45% of the prescriptions. A majority of the dentists (64%) failed to provide any instructions about the design of the rests to be placed on the most posterior premolar abutment teeth. A considerable proportion of the dentists delegated the task of selecting the type of the major connector to the dental technician (41%). Only 21 (23%) of the examined casts had clearly defined rest seat preparation. The outcome of this pilot survey shows inadequate quality of prescription in designing RPDs for patients with SDAs. This finding has an ethical and clinical bearing and does not fit with current legal guidelines relevant to designing RPDs.