Geerts, GretaFarao, Warren Emile2019-04-092024-04-172019-04-092024-04-172019https://hdl.handle.net/10566/11076Magister Scientiae Dentium - MSc(Dent)Three dental laboratories in the Cape Town Metropole that were known to fabricate “flexible” or NMCDs for dental practices were identified and were invited to participate in the study. Their participation consisted of emailing photographs of completed metal-frame, acrylic and flexible RPDs and their casts prior to sending them to the practices for delivery to patients. Specimens were collected until a total of 20 metal-frame, 20 acrylic resin and 20 flexible RPDs were received. A design was drawn for each submitted RPD. For each RPD, an “ideal” design was drawn, using the image of the cast. This was done by two observers, who are experienced members of staff in the Department of Restorative Dentistry (Prosthetics), independently. The designs from both observers were later compared for similarity. Where differences existed in the designs, these were resolved by means of discussion until agreement was reached. Each ideal design served as the control for each clinical design.The number of rests, their configuration, the type of support, number of clasps, the presence of indirect retention, cross-arch stabilization, the number of teeth whose periodontal tissues were covered by design components for each design among the different denture type groups, and corresponding control designs were identified and reported. The ratios of teeth replaced/teeth covered per denture type groups and per classification, and corresponding control designs were compared.enSupportRetentionStabilityIndirect retentionPartially edentulousUniversity of the Western Cape