1 Volume 24 2025 e255628 Original Research Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v24i00.8675628 1 Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba, Universidade Estadual de Campinas Avenida Limeira 901, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil - 13414-903, e-mail: regarcia@fop.unicamp.br Editor: Dr. Altair A. Del Bel Cury Received: January 26, 2024 Accepted: September 30, 2024 Planning and RPD mouth preparation by Brazilian dentists in digital dentistry scenario Guilherme Fantini Ferreira1 , Nadine Zumsteen1 , Lorena Tavares Gama1 , Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia1* Aim: This study aimed to verify the percentage of Brazilian dentists who plan and prepare partially edentulous mouths to receive RPDs. Comparisons between Brazilian dental laboratories working with conventional and digital technology (DT) were also performed. Methods: A questionnaire hosted on the Google Forms platform was sent to dental technicians, from all Brazilian regions, who work with RPD framework manufacturers to assess: (1) the technological level of the laboratory, (2) the percentage of master casts received with RPD-specific mouth preparation, and (3) the percentage of work request with RPD design sent by dentists to a laboratory. A Chi-square test was applied to analyze data and a significance level of 5% was adopted. A total of 158 dental technicians participated in this study. Results: A total of 3371 master casts were evaluated by dental technicians, including all Kennedy classifications. However, only 607 (18.01%) of them had RPD-specific mouth preparation. Dental technicians working with DT present more master casts with mouth preparation (p=0.001) and work requests (p=0.001) compared to those who use conventional technology. In addition, no difference was noted in the quality of RPD-specific mouth preparations between master casts received by technicians working with conventional and DT (p>0.05). Conclusion: Most Brazilian dentists (81.99%) do not perform RPD-specific mouth preparation. Besides, dental technicians who work with DT receive more master casts of higher quality, with mouth preparation, and work requests compared to those who do not. Keywords: Denture, partial, removable. Technology. Dentistry. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6449-9408 https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8630-4973 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6224-0072 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-3388 2 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 Introduction Tooth loss is a global problem1 common in adults of different age groups. Never- theless, it is more prevalent in older people2 with low family income3. Develop- ing countries have higher rates of edentulism4, and it is estimated that in Brazil, one-fifth of the elderly population is partially edentulous in both dental arches4. In this scenario, removable partial dentures (RPD) is the therapy elected in most clinical cases as a form of oral rehabilitation of a partially edentulous population because it is conservative, has a good cost-benefit ratio, and represents a quick solution for patients5. Conventionally, the manufacturing method for RPD frameworks is based on the lost wax technique5. However, according to some authors, this method is closely associated with processing and adaptation failures5,6. Nonetheless, advances in computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technol- ogy have allowed the RPD process to be included in digital dentistry, improving the accuracy of its framework7,8 and reducing the number of adjustments and work time8. Despite that, a high rate of RPD failure is still observed, mainly due to a lack of planning9. RPDs diagnosis and planning remain the responsibility of the dentist10,11. These professionals must perform a careful clinical and radiographic examination, obtain high-quality study casts, and determine the parallelism between the support teeth to obtain an adequate insertion and removal trajectory of the RPD12. Furthermore, the height of countour and the retentive areas of the supporting teeth must be analyzed to eliminate possible aesthetic damage associated with the location of the metal12,13. Finally, the correct location of the rest preparations is essential for transmitting forces along the axis of the abutment teeth12-14, reducing torque and preventing tooth mobil- ity12,14. Thus, for the success of oral rehabilitation with RPD, dentists must plan the RPD design and clinically prepare the supporting teeth5 by making rest preparations, guide planes, and obtaining sufficient retention12. Although dentistry teaching in Brazil includes the discipline of RPD15,16, dentists commonly neglect or delegate prosthesis planning to dental prosthesis technicians who do not have enough knowledge to determine the best RPD design17 and do not prepare the mouth to receive such prosthesis, negatively affecting treatment suc- cess. It is important to note that despite technological advances that have allowed the processing of RPDs with greater adaptation of its components to the support structures and made the workflow faster8, the clinical steps of mouth preparation remain the same. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that using digital technology (DT) for RPD construction, clinicians may feel even more comfortable to continue delegating the RPD planning role to the dental technician. Nevertheless, there is no study on this topic. Therefore, this study aimed to verify the percentage of dentists who plan and carry out RPD-specific mouth preparation in Brazil, through a survey conducted with dental technicians working with different technological levels. In addition, the quality of mas- ter casts with RPD-specific mouth preparations and planning design sent to dental 3 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 technicians who work with DT for RPD framework manufacture was compared with those casts sent to laboratories that use conventional technology. Thus, the research working hypothesis was that there is a difference in the percentage of dentists who plan and carry out RPD-specific mouth preparation through master casts evaluation sent to dental technicians who work with DT for RPD framework manufacture and those who use conventional technology. Material and Methods This observational study was approved by the Ethics Committee at Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil (registration number: 69841223.0.0000.5418). Study participation was voluntary, with participants provid- ing digital consent before enrollment. Master casts of partially dentate individuals were analyzed by dental technicians divided into two groups: (1) dental technicians who work with DT (experimental, n = 1028), and (2) dental technicians who work with conventional technology (control, n = 2343). According to a sample size calculation, based on a previous study18 (power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05), a minimum of 1023 master casts should be eval- uated by each technician group. However, there was no minimum number of casts stipulated for each laboratory. Instead, each dental laboratory should evaluate master casts according to their demand, for one month. Thus, the total number of master casts analyzed by laboratories with and without DT should be at least 1023 for each. Dental technicians from all Brazilian regions that manufacture RPDs framework were contacted through the internet, specifically digital media WhatsApp Messenger (WhatsApp LLC, Meta, Santa Clara, CA, USA), and received an invitation to participate in this study. Therefore, to be included in this study, dental technicians should have internet access besides working in the manufacture of RPD frameworks. Clearly, den- tal technicians who do not manufacture RPD frameworks were excluded. The dental technicians received and answered a questionnaire (Table 1) hosted on a Google Forms platform (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), which was available for one month. Technicians who accepted the invitation to participate, digitally signed an informed consent form to gain access to the questionnaire. The questionnaire (Table 1) was divided into four sections: (1) the technological level and the region of Brazil to which it belongs, (2) the presence and quality of the RPD-specific mouth preparation on the master cast, and finally, (3) covered informa- tion regarding the work request and design of the RPD framework. Table 1. Questionnaire sent to Brazilian dental technicians who manufacture RPD frameworks. Technological level 1. Does the dental technician use digital technology (scanning, digital surveyor, and fast prototyping) to manufacture RPD frameworks? Yes or No? 2. Does the technician plan to migrate to digital technology in the near future (6 months or a year)? Yes or No? Continue 4 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 Continuation 3. Which Brazilian region are you located in? a. North b. Northeast c. Midwest d. Southeast e. South General considerations of master casts 1. Which material was used to manufacture the master casts? a. Type II dental stone b. Type III dental stone c. Type IV dental stone 2. Were there positive and/or negative air bubbles in the seating areas of the RPD framework? Yes or No? 3. Were there positive and/or negative air bubbles in the rest areas of the RPD framework? Yes or No? 4. Which Kennedy classification is being analyzed? a. Class I b. Class II c. Class III d. Class IV RPD-specific mouth preparation 1. The RPD-specific mouth preparation was made? Present or Absent? 2. The RPD-specific mouth preparation is correctly distributed? Yes or No? 3. How is the RPD-specific mouth preparation? Good or Poor? Work requisition and RPD design 1. Did the dentist send you the written description of the RPD framework? Yes, No, or Sent, but incorrect? 2. Did the dentist send you the RPD design? Yes, No, or Sent, but incorrect? RPD = Removable partial denture. Before answering the questionnaire, each technician received, via WhatsApp, detailed instructions on the criteria to be used to evaluate each cast. The researcher was available to clarify any doubts during all data collection period. Initially, the techni- cian should answer about the technological level and Brazilian region in which it was located. Following, the characteristics observed in the master cast (i.e. type of dental stone used, presence of air bubbles, and Kennedy classification of the case) were recorded. Once the digital workflow allows the technician to manufacture RPD structures using the “stl” file obtained by intraoral scanning or bench scanning of the master cast, the technician was instructed to evaluate the file following the pattern described for the physical master cast. Therefore, to assess the master casts or “stl” files, technicians followed the subsequent criteria: 5 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 1. presence and location of RPD-specific mouth preparation: master casts origina- ting from dental arches classified as Kennedy Class III and IV, should present rest preparations located on the marginal ridges adjacent to the prosthetic spa- ces. Meanwhile, Kennedy Class I and II master casts should present rest pre- parations for the mesial marginal ridges opposite the prosthetic space18. Mas- ter casts that did not present the distribution as described or without mouth preparation for RPD were classified as absent. In contrast, when master casts contained specific mouth preparations for RPD and corrected located, it was classified as present. 2. shape of rest preparations: dental technicians were instructed to analyze whether the occlusal rest preparations had a triangle form with rounded angles, the apex facing the center of the crown, with the width of the isthmus equal to 1/3 of the distance between the buccal and lingual cusps. Besides, the mesiodistal direction should extend from 1/3 to 1/2 of the width of the tooth19, and its depth should be between 1.5 and 2.0mm. Finally, the axial walls of rests must be expulsive and the pulp wall flat with an inclination to the center of the tooth less than 900 19. In turn, cingulum rest preparations should be in the shape of an inverted “V”, being con- cave in the buccolingual direction and convex in the mesiodistal direction18. If one of the rests did not present the shape as above described, the technician should classify the RPD-specific mouth preparation as poor. However, if rests presented the appropriate shape, they were classified as good. 3. requesting work from the laboratory: it was evaluated according to the written des- cription of the prosthesis framework, as well as its design. The Kennedy classifi- cation19 should be described, and the type of extra coronary retainer clearly iden- tified, along with its components (name of clasps, opposition arms, and minor connectors)18. In addition, the major connector and the saddle must be drawn and described in the planning sent by the dentist18. If the written description or fra- mework drawing was not sent or sent incomplete, the technicians were instructed to consider it as absent. Statistical analysis The SPSS Statistics software (Version 25.0, IBM Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analyses and a significance level of 5% was adopted. The chi- square test was applied to analyze the data. Results Although sample size estimated that 1023 master casts for each dental laboratory (with or without DT) were enough to show significant differences, a total of 3371 master casts were evaluated, being 102 analyzed by technicians working in labora- tories with DT and 2343 by those working in conventional laboratories. The number of master casts evaluated by each dental technician was not computed. Among the total, Kennedy class III was the most prevalent (34%), followed by Kennedy class II (32.66%), Kennedy class I (29.75%), and finally, Kennedy class IV (3.59%). Further- more, most of the master casts (69,53%) were sent to dental technicians who use conventional technology to manufacture the RPD frameworks, while 30.47% were sent to technicians who work with DT. 6 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 To evaluate the master casts, 242 dental technicians from all Brazilian regions were invited to participate in this study. However, 158 agreed to participate and answered the questionnaire, being 14 dental technicians from the Brazilian Northern region (8.86%), 57 from the Northeast (36.08%), 16 from the Midwest (10.13%), 44 from the Southeast (27.85%), and finally, 27 from the South of Brazil (17.09%). Of the total number of participating technicians, 68.99% use conventional technology (n = 109) to process RPD frameworks, while 31.01% work with DT (n = 49). In addition, dental tech- nicians migrated to DT around 2.3 years ago (±1.32). On the other hand, technicians who do not use DT have been working with the conventional technique for around 16.07 years (±7.82). Table 2 shows the distribution of material used to make the master casts. It was observed that dental technicians working with or without DT and received the majority of master casts produced with type IV dental stones (82.93% and 84,82%, respec- tively). Despite working with DT, only a small percentage (11.09%) of technicians received “stl” archives obtained from intra-oral scanning. Considering only physical master casts, it was observed that technicians who work with DT received mas- ter casts with fewer air bubbles in the seating areas of the future framework and in the rest preparations when compared with those who use conventional technol- ogy (p=0.001). Almost twice as many dentists sent master casts with air bubbles to technicians who use conventional technology (6.23%) when compared to those who work with DT (3.5%) (p=0.001). Highlighting, dental technicians who use conventional technology received more Kennedy class II with air bubbles in the seating areas of the future framework and in the rest preparations (p=0.008) when comparing dental technicians that work with DT. Table 2. Distribution (%) of master casts sent to Brazilian dental laboratories according to its Kennedy’s classification and construction material. Kennedy Classification Materials Brazilian dental laboratories CT (%) DT (%) Class I Type III Dental Stone 26.15 7.17 Type IV Dental Stone 73.85 85.34 Intra-oral scanning 0 7.49 Class II Type III Dental Stone 14.55 3.77 Type IV Dental Stone 85.45 85.22 Intra-oral scanning 0 11.01 Class III Type III Dental Stone 12.3 2.93 Type IV Dental Stone 87.7 84.17 Intra-oral scanning 0 12.9 Class IV Type III Dental Stone 8.14 0 Type IV Dental Stone 91.86 77.14 Intra-oral scanning 0 22.86 Continue 7 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 Continuation Total Type III Dental Stone 17.07 4.09 Type IV Dental Stone 82.93 84.82 Intra-oral scanning 0 11.09 CT = Conventional technology; DT = Digital technology RPD-specific mouth preparation Regardless the technological level, among the 3371 master casts analyzed by den- tal technicians, only 607 of them had RPD-specific mouth preparation. Of this total, 222 master casts were sent to dental technicians who use DT, while 385 master casts to those who use conventional technology. Table 3 demonstrates that den- tal technicians working with DT received more master casts (p=0.001) containing RPD-specific mouth preparation compared to those with conventional technology. Regarding the quality of RPD-specific mouth preparations carried out by dentists, no difference was noted between master casts sent to dental technicians with or without DT (p>0.05) (Table 3). Table 3. Comparison of RPD-specific mouth preparation between master casts sent to Brazilian dental laboratories with and without DT. Specific Mouth Preparation Brazilian dental technicians p-value CT (%) DT (%) Present 16.45 21.65 0.001* Absent 83.55 78.35 Good 64.57 59.38 0.114 Poor 35.43 40.62 CT = Conventional technology; DT = Digital technology *chi-square test Requesting work from the laboratory Considering the framework design, it was observed that 94.26% of dental techni- cians who work with DT and 92.87% of those who work with conventional technol- ogy do not receive any kind of framework design (p>0.05) (Table 4). On the other hand, technicians who work with DT received more written descriptions of the RPD framework (p = 0.001) (Table 4), especially for classes I, II, and III (p=0.001; p=0.003; p=0.001, respectively), when compared with those who work with conventional technology. 8 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 Table 4. Comparisons of RPDs framework design, written description between Brazilian dental laboratories with and without DT. Brazilian dental laboratories p-value CT (%) DT (%) RPD framework design Presence 7.13 5.74 0.138 Absence 92.87 94.26 Written description Presence 24.11 35.31 0.001* Absence 75.89 64.69 CT = Conventional technology; DT = Digital technology *chi-square test Discussion This study showed that the percentage of Brazilian dentists who plan and carry out specific mouth preparation of RPDs is still low compared to the previous national studies18,20. Besides, dental technicians who work with DT have received the highest percentage of master casts containing mouth preparation and written descriptions of RPD framework. Based on these findings, the working hypothesis was confirmed, with dental technicians working with DT receiving a higher per- centage of master casts with RPD preparation and written description of the RPD framework design. Considering the RPD-specific mouth preparation, our data agree with previous studies18,20, which showed that most dentists do not prepare the mouth to receive RPD. According to Farias Neto et al.15 (2010), this occurs because most dentists are unaware of all the steps involved in the manufacture of RPD, and this has been observed since undergraduate dentistry education15. Among these steps, dentists do not know how to properly use a surveyor, delegating this function to the dental technician and consequently compromising the RPD-specific mouth preparation18,21. Therefore, a minor portion of dentists may understand the importance of specific mouth preparation for the preservation of supporting frameworks and long-term treatment success12. The digital flow for manufacturing the RPDs framework in this study was carried out through intra-oral scanning or bench scanning of the master cast. Among master casts with specific mouth preparation, technicians working with DT received a higher percentage of master casts with mouth preparation. Dentists may associate the RPD-specific mouth preparation with the fact that this prosthesis manufactured by the digital method may result in prostheses with better accuracy and fewer clinical adjustments8. On the other hand, when analyzing the quality of mouth preparation, dental technicians who work with DT receive master casts with lower quality, high- lighting the lack of knowledge of the dentist to properly prepare the patient to be reha- bilitated with RPDs15,16. 9 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 In addition to the absence of RPD-specific mouth preparation, few dentists carry out planning through the design of the RPD framework. Despite technicians working with DT received a higher percentage of master casts with RPD written description (35.31%), this percentage remains low when compared to previous studies18,20 and reveals that nowadays, the responsibility for planning is still transferred to dental technicians. Although this practice is not recommended because technical pro- fessionals do not have adequate knowledge to carry out this stage of treatment17, which results in high variability in the design/planning of RPD frameworks22, our finding agrees with several authors12,18,20,21 who also observed such role transfer- ence to technicians. This transfer of responsibility is observed in international14,22,23 and national11,18,20,21 scenarios, and it is particularly alarming in Brazil, consider- ing that RPDs are the prostheses in greatest demand4. Therefore, it is necessary to implement and restructure RPD teaching by increasing the practical workload and improving the integration between theory and practice16. Furthermore, dentists must seek continuing education courses, which allow them to update themselves16, reinforcing the importance of carrying out all clinical steps and adequate planning for rehabilitation with RPDs15. Surveying is the stage of RPDs planning more neglected by dentists16. The surveying procedure aims to determine the path insertion of the future prosthesis, also locate areas of interference and the need for guide plans, determine the survey line, and iden- tify retentive areas for placing the retentive terminal of the clasps being usually made with an analog surveyor 24. However, considering the digital workflow, the survey can be conducted using specific software25, which automatically delineates a survey line that can be adjusted based on the guidance of the digital cast26, which may reduce execution time and potential errors. Despite being promising, there are no studies on the accuracy of digital versus conventional survey. Regarding the characteristics of the master casts, most dentists sent master casts processed with type IV dental stone and with a low percentage of air bub- bles. This finding corroborates the study by Dantas et al.20 (2011), in which 58.3% of the master casts were made with type IV dental stone, a material recommended for making RPD frameworks. Considering the presence of positive or negative air bubbles in the prosthesis seating region and in the rest preparations, the percent- age of master casts sent to both technicians who use DT and conventional tech- nology was low (3.5% and 6.23%, respectively). However, technicians using DT received master casts with a lower percentage of air bubbles, mainly in Kennedy class II. This may be related to the fact that 11.09% of master casts received by dental technicians working with DT were through intra-oral scanning. This tech- nique presents greater accuracy of edentulous arches when compared to the tech- nique of printing and making dental casts27, and similar accuracy when it comes to hard tissues28. The number of Brazilian technicians who use DT is still lower compared to those who use conventional technology, which may limit our research. The high cost of the equipment and software necessary to perform prosthetics using the digital method may explain such data. Furthermore, the number of participants from each Brazilian state was heterogeneous, compromising comparisons between them. In addition, 10 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 it was not possible to calibrate all technicians who evaluate the master casts, which can also be a limitation of our study. However, the researchers carefully instructed all technicians on how to evaluate each cast to improve the veracity of the results. It is also important to point out that there is no instrument to verify the mouth preparation and the quality of master casts sent to dental laboratories. Thus, depite our question- naire not being validated in the literature, it was based on previous studies18,19, which help to support our data. Therefore, our findings are important to show how RPDs are being planning and processed by Brazilian dentists and whether DT is influencing such behaviours. Thus, future studies should be carried out to validate an instrument to generate more reliable data. Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that most Brazilian dentists (81.99%) do not perform RPD-specific mouth preparation and RPD planning is still being delegated to dental technicians, as it was seen in the past. Among those who plan, it was observed that a greater percentage (35.31%) of them work in partnership with laboratories that use DT to manufacture RPDs. Finally, 96.5% of master casts sent to laboratories with DT had good quality. Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001. Conflict of Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose. Data availability Datasets related to this article will be available to the corresponding author upon request. Authors Contribution Guilherme Fantini Ferreira: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, visualization. Nadine Zumsteen: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation. Lorena Tavares Gama: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - original draft; writing - review & editing, visualization. Renata Cunha Matheus Rodrigues Garcia: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing - original draft; writing - review & editing, visualization, project administration. References 1. Ali Z, Baker SR, Shahrbaf S, Martin N, Vettore MV. Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):59-68.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.003. Epub 2018 Jul 10. 11 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 2. Müller F, Naharro M, Carlsson GE. What are the prevalence and incidence of tooth loss in the adult and elderly population in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Jun;18 Suppl 3:2-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01459.x. Erratum in: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Mar;19(3):326-8. 3. Slade GD, Akinkugbe AA, Sanders AE. Projections of U.S. Edentulism prevalence following 5 decades of decline. J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):959-65. doi: 10.1177/0022034514546165. 4. Cardoso M, Balducci I, Telles Dde M, Lourenço EJ, Nogueira Júnior L. Edentulism in Brazil: trends, projections and expectations until 2040. Cien Saude Colet. 2016 Apr;21(4):1239-46. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015214.13672015. 5. Benso B, Kovalik AC, Jorge JH, Campanha NH. Failures in the rehabilitation treatment with removable partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 Nov;71(6):1351-5. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.777780. 6. Ahmed N, Abbasi MS, Haider S, Ahmed N, Habib SR, Altamash S, et al. fit accuracy of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated with CAD/CAM, rapid prototyping, and conventional techniques: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Sep;2021:3194433. doi: 10.1155/2021/3194433. 7. Ye H, Ma Q, Hou Y, Li M, Zhou Y. Generation and evaluation of 3D digital casts of maxillary defects based on multisource data registration: A pilot clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Dec;118(6):790-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.01.014. 8. Lang LA, Tulunoglu I. A critically appraised topic review of computer-aided design/computer-aided machining of removable partial denture frameworks. Dent Clin North Am. 2014 Jan;58(1):247-55. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2013.09.006. 9. Saito M, Notani K, Miura Y, Kawasaki T. Complications and failures in removable partial dentures: a clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Jul;29(7):627-33. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00898.x. 10. do Amaral BA, Barreto AO, Gomes Seabra E, Roncalli AG, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A, de Almeida EO. A clinical follow-up study of the periodontal conditions of RPD abutment and non-abutment teeth. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Jul;37(7):545-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02069.x. 11. Bohnenkamp DM. Removable partial dentures: clinical concepts. Dent Clin North Am. 2014 Jan;58(1):69-89. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2013.09.003. 12. Jorge JH, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET, Machado AL, Pavarina AC. [Preparing abutment teeth for removable partial denture]. Rev Odontol UNESP 2006;35(3):215-22. Portuguese. 13. Kern M, Wagner B. Periodontal findings in patients 10 years after insertion of removable partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Nov;28(11):991-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00788.x. 14. Hummel SK, Wilson MA, Marker VA, Nunn ME. Quality of removable partial dentures worn by the adult U.S. population. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jul;88(1):37-43. 15. Farias Neto A, Duarte AR, Shiratori FK, de Alencar e Silva Leite PH, Rizzatti-Barbosa CM, Bonachela WC. Evaluation of senior Brazilian dental students about mouth preparation and removable partial denture design. J Dent Educ. 2010 Nov;74(11):1255-60. 16. Francesquini Jr L, Rizatti-Barbosa CM, Ambrosano GMB, Darugue Jr E, Fernandes MM, Santos LSM. [Dentist’s knowledge on quality evaluation of partial removable dentures and the responsibility related to their manufacturing and installation]. Saude Etica Just. 2009;14(1):9-16. Portuguese. 17. Tuominen R. Clinical quality of removable dentures provided by dentists, denturists and laboratory technicians. J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Apr;30(4):347-52. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01055.x. 18. Torban P, Freitas Júnior AC, Braz R, Duarte Filho ES. [Qualitative and quantitative assessment of removable partial denture plans sent by dentists to dental laboratories]. Odontol Clin Cient. 2016;15(2):109-14. Portuguese. 12 Ferreira et al. Braz J Oral Sci. 2025;24:e255628 19. Torres EM; Rocha SS; Carvalho MA; Maffra PET; Costa RF. [Evaluation of Planning for Removable Partial Denture and Quality of Casts and Prescriptions Sent to the Dental Loboratories]. Rev Odontol Bras Central 2011;20(52):25-30. Portuguese. doi: 10.36065/robrac.v20i52.537. 20. Dantas BAU, Sales JPLA, Farias Neto A, Carreiro AFP. [Evaluation of the Planning of Removable Partial Denture in Plaster Models Received from Prosthodontic Laboratories of the City of João Pessoa, PB, Brazil]. Pesq Bras Odontopediat Clin Integr. 2011;11(1):53-8. Portuguese. 21. Oliveira MCS, Vieira AC, Santos LB, Oliveira Vm, Sampaio NM. [Prevalence of planning for removable partial dentures in the city of Feira de Santana]. Int J Dent 2009;8(2):67-71. Portuguese. 22. McCracken WL. Survey of partial denture designs by commercial dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent 1962;70(2): 132-4. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(62)90164-6. 23. Kilfeather GP, Lynch CD, Sloan AJ, Youngson CC. Quality of communication and master impressions for the fabrication of cobalt chromium removable partial dentures in general dental practice in England, Ireland and Wales in 2009. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Apr;37(4):300-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02055.x. 24. Todescan R, Silva EEB, Silva OJ. [Atlas of removable partial dentures]. São Paulo: Santos; 1996. Portuguese. 25. Tamimi F, Almufleh B, Caron E, Alageel O. Digital removable partial dentures. Clin Dent Rev. 2020;4(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s41894-020-00074-y. 26. Williams RJ, Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Collis J. Use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a removable partial denture framework. J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Aug;96(2):96-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.029. 27. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Jul;62(3):347-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003. 28. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17(7):1759-64. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4.