Tin Thinzar Linn, Phichaya Phimonwongsaphor, Pinpinut Wanichsaithong, Pimduen Rungsiyakull
{"title":"Patient's denture assessment cutoff values for classifying denture-treatment needs in removable complete denture wearers.","authors":"Tin Thinzar Linn, Phichaya Phimonwongsaphor, Pinpinut Wanichsaithong, Pimduen Rungsiyakull","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the patient's denture assessment (PDA) cutoff values for classifying treatment needs in patients wearing conventional complete dentures (CCDs) and implant-retained overdentures (IODs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ninety-six edentulous patients wearing mandibular CCDs or IODs (with opposing maxillary CCDs) for ≥3 months were clinically categorized into three treatment-need groups: no treatment required (G1), chairside maintenance required (G2), and laboratory modification required (G3) for the denture. The participants then completed the 19-item PDA using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation for association between PDA scores and treatment needs, Kruskal-Wallis tests for pairwise comparisons, and multinomial logistic regression to evaluate the association between the PDA subscale scores and treatment needs. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify optimal PDA cutoffs on the basis of the highest Youden's index values alongside likelihood ratios (LRs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall PDA scores correlated significantly with treatment needs (r = 0.606, p < 0.0001). Overall PDA scores differed significantly between G3 and G1 (p ≤ 0.001) and between G3 and G2 (p ≤ 0.02), but did not differ significantly between G1 and G2. For discriminating G3 from G1/G2, the optimal cutoff score was ≤83 mm (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.96, sensitivity: 0.86, specificity: 0.91, positive LR [LR+]: 6.6, negative LR [LR-]: 0.1). To identify any treatment need (G2/G3 vs. G1), the optimal cutoff score was ≤91 mm (AUC: 0.79, sensitivity: 0.81, specificity: 0.70, LR+: 2.7, LR-: 0.3). Lower \"upper denture\" subscale scores were significantly associated with the need for laboratory modifications (p = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PDA is an effective clinical screening tool for complete-denture treatment needs, particularly for identifying laboratory-modification requirements. Suggested overall PDA cutoff scores are 84-91 mm for chairside adjustments and ≤83 mm for laboratory modifications.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70252","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the patient's denture assessment (PDA) cutoff values for classifying treatment needs in patients wearing conventional complete dentures (CCDs) and implant-retained overdentures (IODs).
Materials and methods: Ninety-six edentulous patients wearing mandibular CCDs or IODs (with opposing maxillary CCDs) for ≥3 months were clinically categorized into three treatment-need groups: no treatment required (G1), chairside maintenance required (G2), and laboratory modification required (G3) for the denture. The participants then completed the 19-item PDA using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Data were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation for association between PDA scores and treatment needs, Kruskal-Wallis tests for pairwise comparisons, and multinomial logistic regression to evaluate the association between the PDA subscale scores and treatment needs. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to identify optimal PDA cutoffs on the basis of the highest Youden's index values alongside likelihood ratios (LRs).
Results: Overall PDA scores correlated significantly with treatment needs (r = 0.606, p < 0.0001). Overall PDA scores differed significantly between G3 and G1 (p ≤ 0.001) and between G3 and G2 (p ≤ 0.02), but did not differ significantly between G1 and G2. For discriminating G3 from G1/G2, the optimal cutoff score was ≤83 mm (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.96, sensitivity: 0.86, specificity: 0.91, positive LR [LR+]: 6.6, negative LR [LR-]: 0.1). To identify any treatment need (G2/G3 vs. G1), the optimal cutoff score was ≤91 mm (AUC: 0.79, sensitivity: 0.81, specificity: 0.70, LR+: 2.7, LR-: 0.3). Lower "upper denture" subscale scores were significantly associated with the need for laboratory modifications (p = 0.03).
Conclusions: The PDA is an effective clinical screening tool for complete-denture treatment needs, particularly for identifying laboratory-modification requirements. Suggested overall PDA cutoff scores are 84-91 mm for chairside adjustments and ≤83 mm for laboratory modifications.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.