IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Two Anthropometric Measures in Patients Seeking Removable Dentures
Objectives: Measurement of jaw relations is an important part of the treatment plan for patients requesting complete dentures. Divine Ratio Proportion (DRP) is introduced in dentistry by Ricketts in 1982. DRP as being equivalent to 1.618:1 has been used anthropometric measures in some prosthodontic studies. Present study aimed to comparatively evaluate two methods to determine the DRP of patients seeking removable denture appliances attending University of Dental Medicine, Mandalay, Myanmar.
Methods: The study included 47 patients (patient who has abnormal facial profile are excluded and all patients who are edentulous are included in study). This study compared divine ratio proportion method for determining rest vertical dimension to conventional methods (swallowing method and lip moistening method) for measuring rest vertical dimension. DRP was obtained with the aid of the “Golden Mean Caliper.” The Paired t Test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between two groups.
Results: Result for DRP is 4.18 and 7.62 for conventional method. There was no significant difference between DRP method and conventional methods (swallowing method and lip moistening method) (P=0.628).
Conclusions: DRP method provides comparable anthropometric measures to that of conventional method in 47patients seeking removable dentures. A larger sample size will provide a better understanding of comparative methods.
Methods: The study included 47 patients (patient who has abnormal facial profile are excluded and all patients who are edentulous are included in study). This study compared divine ratio proportion method for determining rest vertical dimension to conventional methods (swallowing method and lip moistening method) for measuring rest vertical dimension. DRP was obtained with the aid of the “Golden Mean Caliper.” The Paired t Test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between two groups.
Results: Result for DRP is 4.18 and 7.62 for conventional method. There was no significant difference between DRP method and conventional methods (swallowing method and lip moistening method) (P=0.628).
Conclusions: DRP method provides comparable anthropometric measures to that of conventional method in 47patients seeking removable dentures. A larger sample size will provide a better understanding of comparative methods.