832 final Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Clinical Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction with Aesthetics, Retention, Function, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Partial Acrylic Dentures Amal Qasim Ahmed, Rusul Subhi Hassan, Hussein Ali M. Hussein, Amenah Hafedh Khudhair, Nabaa Basim Alhusseini , Salah M. Ibrahim Faculty of Dentistry, Kufa University, Najaf, Iraq Abstract Objec>ves: The quality of removable dentures (acrylic par8al and complete) significantly affects pa8ents’ quality of life, encompassing aspects such as aesthe8cs, func8on and the psychological well-being of individuals by restoring their smile. This study aimed to evaluate pa8ents’ sa8sfac8on with aesthe8cs, support, func8on, and comfort of acrylic removable par8al and complete dentures and their acceptance of the procedure. Materials and Methods: A total of 146 randomly selected par8ally and completely edentulous pa8ents (106 males and 40 females) with ages 30 years or more were included in this study. All par8cipa8ng pa8ents (120 par8ally, 23 completely edentulous and 3 pa8ents having one completely edentulous arch and another one is par8ally edentulous) were informed about the objec8ves of the study to get their acceptance in terms of esthe8c, func8on, reten8on, comfort and some other maJers by answering some ques8ons (a ques8onnaire consists of 17 mul8ple choice ques8ons, using Likert-type scale). Results: There was an acceptable level of pa8ent's sa8sfac8on with their constructed removable dentures, but they were more sa8sfied with their removable par8al denture in comparison to their complete one regarding the reten8on of the upper denture (p=0.007), chewing ability (p=0.025), speech (p=0.005) and comfort (p=0.003). Lower denture reten8on (p=0.062), aesthe8c pa8ent's appearance, (p=0.122), geQng ulcers aRer wearing the denture (p=0.125) and difficul8es during denture construc8on visits (p=0.838) did not show the same differences. Most pa8ents (68.49%) had been wearing dentures for more than a year. Conclusions: This study found generally posi8ve pa8ent experiences with both removable par8al and complete dentures, with higher sa8sfac8on observed among those with par8al dentures, par8cularly regarding reten8on, chewing, speech, and comfort. These findings highlight the benefits of preserving natural teeth and the importance of individualized care, especially during the ini8al adjustment period, to op8mize long-term denture success. Keywords: Dimensional Stability; Complete Dentures; Measuring Tools; Dimensional Accuracy; Micrometer Microscope. Cita9on: Ahmed AQ, et al. (2025) Clinical Evalua9on of Pa9ent Sa9sfac9on with Aesthe9c, Reten9on, Func9on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par9al Acrylic Dentures. Den9stry 3000. 1:a001 doi:10.5195/d3000.2025.832 Received: January 11, 2025 Accepted: February 25, 2025 Published: April 23, 2025 Copyright: ©2025 Ahmed AQ, et al. This is an open access ar9cle licensed under a Crea9ve Commons AUribu9on Work 4.0 United States License. Email: Salahm.abrahem@uokufa.edu.iq Introduction Prosthodontics is the branch of dentistry concerned with restoring and maintaining a patient's oral function, well- being, appearance and health by restoring natural teeth and/or replacing missing teeth with artificial replacement teeth [1,2]. This area of dentistry is particularly technique sensitive when it comes to the patient's oral rehabilitation through the provision of fixed partial dentures, removable partial and complete dentures, various maxillofacial prosthesis by the practitioner. Several factors influence the provision of prosthodontics services, including social and demographic characteristics, patient's symptoms and projected need for care, and aesthetic considerations [3]. The practitioner needs to be aware of the methods, material biocompatibility, and bio acceptability that go into creating the prosthesis that the patient will need to wear. It is sagely stated that “It is more important to preserve what already exists than to replace what is missing” [1]. It has been demonstrated that when natural teeth are removed, chewing ability may Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu suffer, which may have an adverse influence on dietary preferences and nutritional status. Diet is crucial for preventing systemic diseases in elderly adults, as poor diets are linked to cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and bowel illness [4]. According to the 2009 Adult Dental Health study, 85-year- old patients had an average of 14 teeth, which suggests that tooth replacement may be warranted in this cohort. Epidemiological evidence also indicates that people are keeping their teeth into later life [5]. In addition, a lower rate of total edentulism has been seen in the elderly population due to advancements in dental materials, improved maintenance and preventive programs, and a better understanding of oral illnesses. However, due to longer life expectancies, an aging population, and more people keeping their teeth, the percentage of people who are partially edentulous is rising [6,7]. People seek dental implants, fixed and removable partial dentures to replace some of their missing teeth, preserve their remaining natural teeth, and improve their appearance, speech, social confidence, and self-esteem. Factors that determine the choice of restoration used include periodontal status, esthetic requirements, cost, anatomical limitations, and patient acceptance [8]. Removable partial dentures (RPDs) are a straightforward technique—still the most popular option of treatment— that patients who are missing some of their natural teeth can use to restore their oral structure and masticatory function [9-11]. The prevention of pathological drifting of adjacent teeth and the supra- eruption of opposing teeth are two advantages of replacing lost teeth. Additional advantages include improved oral function and comfort as well as a decrease in occlusal forces on the natural teeth that remain [12]. Unlike implant therapy, RPD treatment is less intrusive and enables patients who are partially edentulous to receive prompt, affordable care. It is the best practice therapy for several clinical circumstances, including long-term transitional prosthesis for a terminal dentition, rebuilding missing hard and soft tissues to offer esthetic, support, and restoring large edentulous spans [6]. In the past, a variety of materials have been produced for the construction of RPD frameworks; metallic materials, such as chrome cobalt alloys, and acrylic polymers, also known as polymethyl Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is commonly used. However, acrylic denture bases are the most used material for manufacturing RPD frameworks, especially in developing countries, as they are extremely cheap, easy to handle, and can be used with existing low-cost equipment. In addition, the development of nylon denture bases has revolutionized the industry in terms of flexibility and provided a viable alternative to acrylic dentures, addressing some of their disadvantages and limitations [11]. However, some disadvantages of wearing full acrylic dentures compared to other RPD frameworks include a higher risk of caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis. In addition, it is difficult to find a suitable insertion path while maintaining a close tissue fit in the presence of soft and hard tissue undercuts. In addition, acrylic prostheses are manufactured with thicker sections to compensate for their low impact resistance, making them bulky and therefore uncomfortable for patients [8]. Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Edentulism is defined as the loss of all permanent teeth. Complete dentures are one of the most important and popular treatment options for edentulous patients in rehabilitation [13,14]. When an edentulous patient comes for denture treatment, the main complaint is chewing problems, poor appearance, speech problems, discomfort, or a combination of these issues, which explains why the person needs dentures. While most edentulous people need to wear dentures to chew, there are some, such as teachers. who prefer replacement for phonetics and others like celebrities who mainly prefer them for esthetics, which indicates that preference for need of a denture varies among individuals. Knowing the choice of the necessity of a denture is very important for a dentist since there may be certain constraints in accomplishing these aims [15], so patients accept complete Dentures are used because they provide an attractive appearance, enable normal speech, and provide support and adequate means for chewing food [13]. Within a decade, methyl methacrylate (MMA) became the material of choice for 95% of dentures manufactured because it met the requirements for an optimal substrate. MMA is also used as the primary component of artificial tooth braces, which are made from a variety of materials including polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and various ceramics and composites. Acrylic teeth have been used to manufacture complete dentures since 1940. Acrylic teeth are popular because of their price and aesthetics, as well as their chemical bonding to the acrylic denture base. In contrast, ceramic does not chemically bond to acrylic; however, it is resistant to surface wear and porcelain teeth may transmit forces directly to the bone [16]. Treatment of edentulism with complete dentures remains common because it is relatively inexpensive and simple [14, 17]. Wearing a new complete denture can cause a variety of discomforts, especially soon after the denture is inserted. Complaints may include lack of support and stability, pain or discomfort, food accumulation under the denture, speech changes, difficulty eating, unsightly appearance, and choking. Other complaints include bone resorption of the edentulous alveolar ridge and sometimes overgrowth of tissue under the denture due to the forces generated by the mandible during function and dysfunction, as the mucosa is squeezed between the denture base and the underlying bone, so all forces are transmitted through this atrophic tissue [2]. A great deal of research has been conducted to explain why some patients have more difficulty wearing complete dentures successfully than others. The technical quality of the prosthesis is obviously important, but physiological and psychological variables are also thought to contribute. Although it is known that older people take longer to adapt to new prostheses, multiple questionnaires, interviews, and personality tests have failed to identify accurate indicators that can predict patient dissatisfaction with prostheses [17]. Patient satisfaction is an important goal of oral rehabilitation and can be used to assess the success of these rehabilitations [18]. It is important to remember that patients and dentists have Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu different expectations and satisfaction with the same restorative treatment. These differing comments can lead to conflict between patients and dentists and adversely affect the dentist-patient relationship, resulting in a potential loss of patient satisfaction. Dentists often evaluate the success of a denture based on established clinical criteria without considering the individual patient’s needs, expectations, and attitudes. Because patients and dentists may have different expectations and satisfaction with the same treatment, it is important to establish a strong dentist-patient connection to understand the patient’s preferences and help set appropriate expectations to achieve the chosen treatment [19]. There is a shortage of relevant information on patient satisfaction and concerns with detachable denture usage in Middle Eastern populations. Some research conducted across diverse populations showed that most patients are generally satisfied with their removable dentures [11] so, this study was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical effects of constructed removable partial and complete acrylic dentures at dental health care institutions for Iraqi people with respect to retention, esthetic, function, comfort and any possible related problems such as sore mouth. Moreover, the study seeks to evaluate patients' acceptance of the entire treatment process, from initial consultation to the final fitting and adjustments of the dentures. Table 1. Distribu4on of the pa4ents according to general characteris4cs. Percentage Number Age 0% 0 Less than 30 years 18.49% 27 30-50 years 81.51 119 Up 50 years Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Gender 72.6% 106 Male 27.4% 40 Female 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Level of educa4on 24.66% 36 Educated 75.34% 110 Uneducated 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Period of wearing a denture 12.3% 18 Less than 3 months 19.18% 28 3-12 months 68.49% 100 More than 12 months 100% 146 Total Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Material and Methods Study Design and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted at the prosthetic clinic at the College of Dentistry, University of Kufa, Iraq. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Kufa College of Medicine Medical Ethics Committee (MEC-38) on 14/5/2024. Patients were recruited between January and May 2024. Patients were recruited using convenience sampling from those presenting at the prosthetic clinic during the recruitment period. While we aimed for gender balance, recruitment continued until the desired sample size was achieved. Table 2. Aesthe4cs and sa4sfac4on characteris4cs. Percentage Number Color of denture 17.12% 25 Very good 9.59% 14 Good 65.07% 95 Acceptable 8.22% 12 Bad Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 0% 0 Very bad 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Color of teeth 15% 22 Very good 6.2% 9 Good 74.7% 109 Acceptable 4.1% 6 Bad 0% 0 Very bad 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Size of teeth 5.5% 8 Very large 2.7% 4 Large 91.1% 133 Acceptable 0% 0 Small 0.7% 1 Very small 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Appearance of face aEer denture wearing Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 26.7% 39 I looked preker and younger 4.8% 7 I looked preker 8.2% 12 I looked younger 59.6% 87 Acceptable 0.7% 1 There is no change in my appearance 100% 146 Total Percentage Number To what extent do you accept the steps of the work 15.1% 22 It was short and very comfortable 18.5% 27 It was short and fairly comfortable 54.8% 80 It was long but comfortable 11.6% 17 It was long and uncomfortable 0% 0 It was very long and uncomfortable 100% 146 Total Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Table 3. Func4onal characteris4cs. Percentage Number Reten4on of upper denture 21.2% 31 Very good 61% 89 Good 11.6% 17 Acceptable 6.25 9 Bad 0% 0 Very bad 100% 146 Total Percentage Number Reten4on of lower denture 6.2% 9 Very good 19.9% 29 Good 63.7% 93 Acceptable 10.2% 15 Bad 0% 0 Very bad 100% 146 Total Percentage Number How well can you talk with dentures 19.9% 29 Very well Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 64.4% 94 Well 11.6% 17 Poorly 4.1% 6 Very poorly 0% 0 Neutral 100% 146 Total Percentage Number How well can you Chew with your dentures 10.3% 15 Very well 25.3% 37 Well 59.6% 87 Poorly 4.8% 7 Very poorly 0% 0 Neutral 100% 146 Total Percentage Number How comfortable are your dentures 18.5% 27 Very comfortable 63% 92 Comfortable 13.7% 20 Uncomfortable 4.8% 7 Very uncomfortable Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 0% 0 Neutral 100 146 Total Percentage Number Do you get a sore mouth 30.1% 44 Yes 69.9% 102 No 100% 146 Total Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Data Collection Prior to treatment, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Information about the study’s purpose, risks, benefits, and the right to withdraw were explained in detail, and written consent was obtained. Data were collected using the following: Demographics and Clinical Data Age, gender, education level, and period of denture use (if applicable) were recorded from patient records. Patient Satisfaction Patient satisfaction with aesthetics, retention, function, and comfort of their dentures was assessed using a previously prepared 17-item questionnaire using a Likert-type scale [19]. The questionnaire addressed specific aspects of: Aesthetics [List a few examples, e.g., satisfaction with denture color, tooth size and shape, overall appearance]. Retention [List examples, e.g., stability of dentures during speaking, eating, at rest]. Function [List examples, e.g., chewing ability, speech clarity, ease of use]. Comfort [List examples, e.g., presence of soreness, irritation, overall comfort level]. Photographs Standardized photographs of the lower third of the face were taken Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using [Statistical software, e.g., SPSS version 23]. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data [ANOVA for continuous variables]. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Table 4. Comparison of aesthe4cs and func4onal characteris4cs between type of prosthe4c treatment. P- values Complete denture (N=23) Par4al denture (N= 120) Variables N (%) N (%) Reten4on of upper denture 0.007 5 (21.8%) 25 (20.8%) Very good 9 (39.1%) 80 (66.7%) Good 7 (30.4%) 7 (5.8%) Acceptable 2 (8.7%) 8 (6.7%) Bad 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Very bad Reten4on of lower denture 0.062 2(8.7%) 6 (5%) Very good 7 (30.4%) 20 (16.7%) Good 10 (43.5%) 84 (70%) Acceptable 4 (17.4%) 10 (8.3%) Bad 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Very bad Appearance of face aEer denture wearing 0.122 4 (17.4%) 32 (26.7%) I looked preker and younger 3 (13%) 2 (1.7%) I looked preker Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 14 (60.9 %) 75 (62.5%) I looked younger 2 (8.7%) 10 (8.3%) Acceptable 0 (0%) 1 (0.8%) There is no change in my appearance To what extent do you accept the steps of the work 0.838 2 (8.7%) 20 (16.7%) It was short and very comfortable 5 (21.7%) 23 (19.2%) It was short and fairly comfortable 14 (60.9%) 65 (54.1%) It was long but comfortable 2 (8.7%) 12 (10%) It was long and uncomfortable 0 (0%) 0 (0%) It was very long and uncomfortable How well can you talk with dentures 0.005 5 (21.7%) 24 (20%) Very well 10 (43.5%) 80 (66.7%) Well 8(34.8%) 9 (7.5%) Poorly 0(0%) 7 (0%) Very poorly 0 (0%) 0 (5.8%) Neutral How well can you Chew with your dentures 0.025 5 (21.8%) 10 (8.4%) Very well Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu 9 (39.1%) 25 (20.8%) Well 9 (39.1%) 79 (65.8%) Poorly 0(0%) 6 (5%) Very poorly 0(0%) 0(0%) Neutral How comfortable are your dentures 0.003 6 (26.1%) 20 (16.7%) Very comfortable 8 (34.8%) 83 (69.2%) Comfortable 9 (39.1%) 10 (8.3%) Uncomfortable 0(0%) 7 (5.8%) Very uncomfortable 0(0%) 0(0%) Neutral Do you get a sore mouth 0.125 2 (8.7%) 22 (18.3%) Yes 21 (91.3%) 98 (81.7%) No *The P-value was calculated by Fisher exact test. R sults General characteris4cs One hundred and forty-six parocipaong paoents (106 male and 40 female), including 27 of them aged between (30-50) years old, 119 who were older than 50 years and there was no paoent under the age of 30 years. The level of educaoon was very low with 75.34% uneducated. The largest percentage of parocipants (68.49%) wore their dentures more than one year, followed by those who wore them between 3 and 12 months (19.18%), and the lowest percentage (12.3%) was for those who had a denture for a period less than 3 months, as shown in Table 1. The largest percentage of paoents chose "acceptable" regarding the color of the Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu dentures (65.07%), the color (74.7 %) and size of the aroficial teeth (91.1%), and regarding their face appearance arer wearing their dentures (59.6%). In general denture making visits were long but comfortable for them (54.8%), as shown in Table 2, and Figures 1 and 2. Regarding the funcoonal characterisocs (including both paroal and complete dentures generally) the retenoon of upper denture was "good" (61%) and "acceptable" for the lower denture (63.7%), and also good for their ability to talk while wearing it (64.4%), but they were able to use it for chewing poorly (59.6%) and it was comfortable in general (63%), and a small percentage of them suffered from ulcers (30.1%), as shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. Finally, the results of the comparison between the paroal and complete dentures in terms of aestheoc and funcoonal characterisocs were as follows; The difference in retenoon for the upper paroal in comparison with complete dentures was significant (p=0.007) while for the lower denture it was not significant (p=0.062) and there was no significant difference between the paroal and complete denture in terms of paoent’s appearance arer wearing denture (p=0.122), but the difference in the ability to talk, chew and comfort was significant (p=0.005, p=0.025), and p=0.003, respecovely). Finally, there was no significant difference in regarding the extent to which the paoent accepts the treatment steps and number of visits (p=0.838), and the appearance of ulcers inside the mouth (p=0.125). As shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. Figure 1. Representa4ve treated cases with removable par4al acrylic dentures showing the color of denture, color and size of the ar4ficial teeth (A) before the treatment and (B) aEer wearing their dentures. Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Figure 2. Illustra4ve treated cases with complete dentures showing pa4ent's appearance aEer wearing their dentures and its posi4ve effect on the appearance, so that the pa4ent appears younger in age, (A) before the treatment and (B) aEer wearing their dentures. Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Figure 3. Representa4ve cases treated with removable par4al acrylic dentures (A) before the treatment and (B) aEer wearing their dentures. Figure 4. Representa4ve treated cases with complete dentures, (A) before the treatment and (B) aEer wearing their dentures. Discussion The demographic distribuoon of our study sample offers valuable insights into paoent saosfacoon with removable paroal and complete acrylic dentures. As expected, our study populaoon skewed towards older adults, with 81.51% being over 50 years old, consistent with previous findings [20]. This age distribuoon aligns with the higher prevalence of tooth loss and denture needs among older demographics [21]. However, the absence of parocipants under 30 highlights a potenoal limitaoon requiring further invesogaoon. Younger individuals oren priorioze the superior aestheocs, comfort, and funcoonality offered by fixed soluoons or dental implants, impacong their acceptance of removable opoons [22,23]. The significant gender disparity, with 72.6% males compared to 27.4% females, suggests that men might be more accepong of removable dentures. This difference could stem from varying priorioes regarding Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu aestheocs and self-percepoon. Research indicates that women tend to place a higher value on the appearance of dental prostheses, influencing their saosfacoon levels and potenoally leading them to favor fixed soluoons like implants [24-26]. Socio- economic factors also likely play a role, as men might priorioze the cost-effecoveness of removable dentures over the aestheoc advantages of more expensive alternaoves [25,26]. The low educaoonal avainment among our parocipants (75.34% uneducated) is noteworthy. This aligns with studies demonstraong a link between lower educaoonal levels and higher rates of missing teeth and removable prostheoc use [22,26,28]. This pavern may be compounded by the generally lower educaoonal avainment among older populaoons in Iraq. Educaoonal level can significantly influence a paoent’s ability to understand post-procedure care, manage expectaoons, and adhere to maintenance rouones, ulomately affecong their saosfacoon with dentures. These findings underscore the need for tailored paoent educaoon and support based on individual needs and educaoonal backgrounds. Most paoents found their denture teeth size "acceptable" (91.1%). This suggests that dentures were generally well- tailored to oral dimensions, potenoally contribuong to comfort. The low percentages of "very large" (5.5%) or "very small" (0.7%) teeth indicate that significant size discrepancies were infrequent, likely due to the presence of remaining natural teeth used as a reference for aroficial tooth selecoon and the opportunity for paoents to evaluate aestheocs during trial appointments [29]. While color saosfacoon was generally acceptable, there is room for improvement as a considerable proporoon of parocipants did not rate the color of their dentures or teeth as "very good." Our analysis revealed a significant difference in upper denture retenoon between RPDs and CDs. This is unsurprising, as RPDs uolize clasps anchored to remaining teeth for stability [30-32]. Conversely, CD retenoon relies solely on the denture base's fit against the mucosa, influenced by factors such as saliva, sor ossue contours, and the rate of bone resorpoon, which tends to be more pronounced in completely edentulous jaws [33-38]. While advancements in materials and techniques like CAD/CAM have improved CD fit and comfort, they soll typically offer less retenoon compared to RPDs [39]. Interesongly, no significant difference in lower denture retenoon was observed. This might be avributed to the anatomical and funcoonal challenges inherent to the mandibular arch, which impact both RPDs and CDs. Factors such as limited ridge support, tongue movement, and floor of the mouth dynamics can dislodge both types of dentures [17,40-42]. The non-significant difference in perceived facial appearance between RPD and CD wearers aligns with Čelebić and Knezović-Zlatarić’s research [43]. This suggests that both denture types effecovely restore facial aestheocs by compensaong for missing teeth and supporong facial structures [25]. The use of heat-cured acrylic resin, which blends well with oral ossues, likely contributed to the acceptable aestheoc outcomes for both denture types [12]. As expected, RPD wearers reported significantly bever speech clarity compared to CD wearers. This difference likely stems from the complete palatal coverage of CDs, potenoally interfering with tongue movements crucial for speech, parocularly for producing certain consonant sounds [44,45]. Overextended Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu upper denture bases can further exacerbate speech difficuloes by impeding lip movement [17,46]. The significant difference in chewing ability between RPD and CD wearers can be avributed to several factors. The superior stability and retenoon of RPDs during chewing mooons, due to their anchorage to natural teeth, are key [46-49]. Addioonally, the sensory input from periodontal mechanoreceptors in remaining natural teeth plays a crucial role in controlling jaw movements during chewing, a benefit absent in CD wearers [50,51]. Denture instability during chewing is a common complaint among CD wearers, leading to compensatory tongue and cheek movements that compromise their masocatory efficiency [17,48,52,53]. The significant difference in overall comfort favoring RPDs aligns with the findings on retenoon, speech, and chewing ability. The non-significant difference in reported mouth ulcers could be avributed to the emphasis on meoculous denture fabricaoon and regular adjustments for both denture types. The lack of difference in the acceptance of denture construcoon steps reinforces that both RPDs and CDs necessitate similar procedures to ensure opomal fit, comfort, and funcoon. This study indicates a general acceptance of both RPDs and CDs among our paoent populaoon, with a predominance of older males. However, RPDs appear to offer greater saosfacoon, parocularly regarding retenoon, speech, chewing, and overall comfort. These findings underscore the need for cononued research and advancements in denture design, fabricaoon techniques, and paoent educaoon to further improve the experiences of individuals relying on removable prostheses. Conclusions Considering the shortcomings of this study, it was concluded that most of the paoents who were included in the study were paroally edentulous paoents and more than those completely edentulous. Generally, there was acceptance and saosfacoon from paoents with their deferent types of the constructed removable acrylic studied dentures, and the percentage of males was higher than that of the females and the percentage of elderly paoents was higher, but the level of educaoon was low. In general, there was more acceptance and saosfacoon among those who wear paroal dentures than those who wear complete dentures in terms of retenoon, ability to chew, speak, and comfort, but there was no significant difference in terms of aestheocs (including face appearance arer wearing denture, teeth size and the color of denture and teeth), the appearance of ulcers, and the steps of denture construcoon. Acknowledgments We appreciate the assistance and resources provided by the Department of Oral Diagnosis at the Kufa College of Denostry. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The data created and examined during the current study can be available upon reasonable request. Funding None. Regulatory Statement Every procedure used in the study complied with the 1964 Helsinki Declaraoon and its later 2013 revisions, Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Kufa/ College of Medicine/ Medical Ethics Commivee (MEC-38) on 14/5/2024. Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu References 1. Souza, Raphael F., Cláudio R. Leles, and Marco A. Compagnoni. "A Survey of Complete Denture Teaching in Brazilian Dental Schools." Brazilian Dental Science 5.1 (2002). 2. Hassan, Rusul Subhi, et al. Assessment of Periodontal Health Status and Treatment Needs Among Dental Students of Al-Kufa University by Using the Community Periodontal Index for Treatment Needs: A Cross-Secoonal Study. Denostry 3000, 2024, 12.2.Al-Kaisy, N. "A Survey of Prosthodonocs Techniques Applied by Dental Pracoooners in Sulaimani City." J Bagh Coll Dent, vol. 28, no. 3, 2016, pp. 22-29. 3. McKenna, G., et al. "Comparison of Funcoonally Orientated Tooth Replacement and Removable Paroal Dentures on the Nutrioonal Status of Paroally Dentate Older Paoents: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial." Journal of Den1stry, vol. 42, no. 6, 2014, pp. 653-659. 4. Friel, T., and S. Waia. "Removable Paroal Dentures for Older Adults." Primary Dental Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, 2020, pp. 34-39. 5. Kim, J.J. "Revisiong the Removable Paroal Denture." Dental Clinics, vol. 63, no. 2, 2019, pp. 263-278. 6. Suwal, P., et al. "Cast Paroal Denture Versus Acrylic Paroal Denture for Replacement of Missing Teeth in Paroally Edentulous Paoents." Journal of Dental Material and Technique (JDMT), vol. 6, 2017, pp. 27- 34. 7. Khalel, A. M., Ali, M. B., Sadiq, M. A., Ibrahim, S. M., & Ali, S. H. (2024). DMFT and PUFA Indices in First Permanent Molars of Iraqi Children in Najaf City. Denostry 3000, 12(2). 8. Preshaw, P.M., et al. "Associaoon of Removable Paroal Denture Use with Oral and Systemic Health." Journal of Den1stry, vol. 39, no. 11, 2011, pp. 711-719. 9. Abuzar, M.A., E. Kahwagi, and T. Yamakawa. "Invesogaong Oral Health- Related Quality of Life and Self-Perceived Saosfacoon with Paroal Dentures." Journal of Inves1ga1ve and Clinical Den1stry, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 109-117. 10. Aljabri, M.K., T.O. Ibrahim, and R.M. Sharka. "Removable Paroal Dentures: Paoent Saosfacoon and Complaints in Makkah City, KSA." Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, vol. 12, no. 6, 2017, pp. 561-564. 11. Akinyamoju, C.A., et al. "Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: Acrylic Versus Flexible Paroal Dentures." Ghana Medical Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, 2019, pp. 163- 169. 12. El Afandy, H.M. "Evaluaoon the Retenoon of Upper Complete Denture with Different Acrylic Denture Base Materials." Egyp1an Dental Journal, vol. 65, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 2691-2698. 13. Cooper, P., R. Hegde, and C. Hegde. "A Quesoonnaire- Based Survey to Assess the Knowledge and Awareness of Denture Staining in Complete Denture Wearers." Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 45-50. 14. Suresh, S., and Swao Sharma. "A Clinical Survey to Determine the Awareness and Preference of Needs of a Complete Denture Among Complete Edentulous Paoents." Journal of Interna1onal Oral Health 2.3 (2010). 15. Bilgin, M.S., et al. "Fabricaong Complete Dentures with CAD/CAM and RP Technologies." Journal of Prosthodon1cs, vol. 24, no. 7, 2015, pp. 576- 579. 16. Bilhan, H., et al. "Evaluaoon of Saosfacoon and Complicaoons in Paoents with Exisong Complete Dentures." Journal of Oral Science, vol. 55, no. 1, 2013, pp. 29-37. 17. Baracat, L.F., et al. "Paoents' Expectaoons Before and Evaluaoon Arer Dental Implant Therapy." Clinical Implant Den1stry and Related Research, vol. 13, no. 2, 2011, pp. 141-145. 18. Santos, B.F.O., et al. "Paoents’ Evaluaoons of Complete Denture Therapy and Their Associaoon with Related Variables: A Pilot Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Study." Journal of Prosthodon1cs, vol. 24, no. 5, 2015, pp. 351-357. 19. Saadrosama, Atheer Mohammed Alrubaian. "Awareness and Aktude Toward Replacement of Missing Teeth Among, Paoents Who Visit Dental Clinics of Qassim University., Al-Qassim Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." Int J Curr Res, vol. 10, 2018, pp. 71943-71948. 20. Ibrahim, Salah M., Savar Jabbar Abdul-Zahra Al- Hmedat, and Mohammed Hamoudi Alsunboli. "Histological Study to Evaluate the Effect of Local Applicaoon of Myrtus Communis Oil on Alveolar Bone Healing in Rats." The Open Denostry Journal 18.1 (2024). 21. Leles, C.R., et al. "Discriminant Analysis of Paoents’ Reasons for Choosing or Refusing Treatments for Paroal Edentulism." Journal of Oral Rehabilita1on, vol. 36, no. 12, 2009, pp. 909-915. 22. Frank, R.P., et al. "Relaoonship Between the Standards of Removable Paroal Denture Construcoon, Clinical Acceptability, and Paoent Saosfacoon." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 83, no. 5, 2000, pp. 521-527. 23. Agarwal, S., et al. "Denosts' Preference Toward Fixed Versus Removable Implant Prosthesis on Edentulous Jaws to Improve Quality of Life." Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, vol. 33, no. 1, 2023. 24. Yen, Y.Y., et al. "Impact of Removable Dentures on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Among Elderly Adults in Taiwan." BMC Oral Health, vol. 15, 2015, pp. 1- 12. 25. Chakaipa, S., et al. "The Experiences of Paoents Treated with Complete Removable Dentures: A Systemaoc Literature Review of Qualitaove Research." Oral, vol. 2, no. 3, 2022, pp. 205-220. 26. Rodrigues, A., S. Dhanania, and R. Rodrigues. “If I Have Teeth, I Can Smile.” Experiences with Tooth Loss and the Use of a Removable Dental Prosthesis Among People Who Are Paroally and Completely Edentulous in Karnataka, India. BDJ Open, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, p. 34. 27. Mohammed, Mohammed Jasim; Al-Mizraqchi, Abbas S.; Ibrahim, Salah M. Oral findings, salivary copper, magnesium, and lepon in type II diabeoc paoents in relaoon to oral candida species. Internaoonal Journal of Microbiology, 2024, 2024.1: 8177437. 28. Ibrahim, Salah Mahdi, and Savar J. Abdul-Zahra Al Hmedat. "Role of Manual and Powered Tooth Brushes in Plaque Removal and Oral Health Status (A Comparaove Study)." Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development 10.8 (2019). 29. Alageel, O., et al. "Evaluaoon of the Design- Driven Predicoon of Removable Paroal Denture Retenoon." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 124, no. 3, 2020, pp. 357- 364. 30. Alageel, O., et al. "Determining the Retenoon of Removable Paroal Dentures." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 122, no. 1, 2019, pp. 55-62. 31. Anes, V., et al. "Evaluaoon of the Retenove Forces from Removable Paroal Denture Clasps Manufactured by the Digital Method." Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 14, 2023, p. 8072. 32. Shawi, H., et al. "Improving the Retenoon of Maxillary Complete Denture: A Case Report." AlQalam Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 2024, pp. 113-120. 33. Chebib, Najla, et al. "Fit and retenoon of complete denture bases: Part II– convenoonal impressions versus digital scans: A clinical controlled crossover study." The Journal of Prostheoc Denostry (2022). 34. Akaltan, F., et al. "Comparaove Analysis of Denture Base Adaptaoon Performance Between Pour and Other Convenoonal Fabricaoon Techniques." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 123, no. 1, 2020, pp. 183-e1. 35. Sayed, F., et al. "The Effect of Using Ultra Sucoon System on Mandibular Complete Denture Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Retenoon." Al-Azhar Dental Journal for Girls, vol. 3, no. 3, 2016, pp. 161-169. 36. Mehra, M., F. Vahidi, and R.W. Berg. "A Complete Denture Impression Technique Survey of Postdoctoral Prosthodonoc Programs in the United States." J Prosthodont, vol. 23, 2014, pp. 320-327. 37. Darvell, B.W., and R.K.F. Clark. "The Physical Mechanisms of Complete Denture Retenoon." Bri1sh Dental Journal, vol. 189, no. 5, 2000, pp. 248-252. 38. Jayaraman, S., et al. "Final- Impression Techniques and Materials for Making Complete and Removable Paroal Dentures." Cochrane Database of Systema1c Reviews, no. 4, 2018, pp. 39. Awawdeh, M., et al. "A Systemaoc Review of Paoent Saosfacoon With Removable Paroal Dentures (RPDs)." Cureus, vol. 16, no. 1, 2024. 40. Alqutaibi, A.Y. "A Within- Subject Comparison of the Convenoonal Clasp- Retained with Avachment- Retained Removable Paroal Dentures." Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, vol. 15, no. 4, 2020, pp. 305- 311. 41. Ribeiro, J.A., et al. "The Influence of Mandibular Ridge Anatomy on Treatment Outcome with Convenoonal Complete Dentures." Acta Odontológica La1noamericana, vol. 27, no. 2, 2014, pp. 53-57. 42. Ibrahim, S., and A.S. Hussein. "Role of Hexidine, Zak and Biofresh Mouth Wash in Commemoraoon Deleoon and Oral Health Status (Comparaove Study)." Interna1onal Journal of Pharmaceu1cal Research, vol. 11, no. 1, 2019. 43. Mahross, H.Z., and K. Baroudi. "Spectrogram Analysis of Complete Dentures with Different Thickness and Palatal Rugae Materials on Speech Producoon." Interna1onal Journal of Den1stry, 2015. 44. Koike, T., et al. "Influence of Anterior Palatal Coverage on Percepoon and Retenoon in Complete Dentures." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 105, no. 4, 2011, pp. 272-279. 45. Gosavi, S.S., et al. "A Survey of Complete Denture Paoents Experiencing Difficuloes with Their Prostheses." The Journal of Contemporary Dental Prac1ce, vol. 14, no. 3, 2013, p. 524. 46. Pan, Y.H., T.M. Lin, and C.H. Liang. "Comparison of Paoent's Saosfacoon with Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures and Complete Dentures." Biomedical Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, 2014, p. 156. 47. Gonçalves, T.M.S.V., et al. "Effect of Complete and Paroal Removable Dentures on Chewing Movements." Journal of Oral Rehabilita1on, vol. 41, no. 3, 2014, pp. 177-183. 48. Nand, M., and M. Mohammadnezhad. "Challenges Faced by Edentulous Paoents (EDPs) During Complete Denture Prostheses (CDP) Service Delivery in Fiji—A Qualitaove Study." BMC Health Services Research, vol. 22, no. 1, 2022, p. 742. 49. Ibrahim, Salah M., Abbas S. Al-Mizraqchi, and Julfikar Haider. "Metronidazole Potenoaoon by Panax Ginseng and Symphytum officinale: A New Strategy for P. gingivalis Infecoon Control." An1bio1cs, vol. 12, no. 8, 2023, p. 1288, hvps://doi.org/10.3390/ano bioocs12081288. 50. Svensson, K.G., J. Grigoriadis, and M. Trulsson. "Alteraoons in Intraoral Manipulaoon and Splikng of Food by Subjects with Tooth-or Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses." Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 24, no. 5, 2013, pp. 549- 555. 51. Zoidis, P., I. Papathanasiou, and T.F. DeLuca. "Paoent Saosfacoon with Convenoonal Dentures Fabricated with Different Processing Techniques: A Systemaoc Review." The Journal of Prosthe1c Den1stry, vol. 118, no. 4, 2017, pp. 493-500, hvps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pr osdent.2016.12.011. 52. Chakaipa, S., et al. "The Experiences of Paoents Treated with Complete Removable Dentures: A Systemaoc Literature Clinical Evalua+on of Pa+ent Sa+sfac+on with Aesthe+cs, Reten+on, Func+on, and Comfort of Removable Complete and Par+al Acrylic Dentures Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.832 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Review of Qualitaove Research." Oral, vol. 2, no. 3, 2022, pp. 205-220, hvps://doi.org/10.1016/j.or al.2022.06.002.