# Quantification of Removable Prosthesis Plaque Area Coverage Among Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

## TL;DR

This study reviews and analyzes how plaque covers removable dental prostheses in adults, finding poor cleanliness and inconsistent methods for measuring plaque.

## Contribution

The paper provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of plaque coverage on removable dental prostheses using computerized planimetric assessments.

## Key findings

- The pooled plaque coverage area was 37.06% using computerized planimetric assessments.
- Adobe Photoshop showed reduced heterogeneity in plaque quantification compared to other methods.
- Most studies rely on visual indices, highlighting a lack of standardized methods for plaque assessment.

## Abstract

To investigate removable dental prosthesis plaque area coverage assessment methods and conduct a meta‐analysis of prosthesis cleanliness status of adult patients wearing removable dental prostheses, quantified by using computerized planimetric assessments.

The present study was registered with PROSPERO and conducted following the principles published by the working group of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Quality assessments were performed according to a JBI critical appraisal checklist across nine criteria. The results were pooled using a frequentist random effects meta‐analysis to estimate the event proportion. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding some studies.

Initially, 6342 articles were identified. After screening titles and abstracts, 141 studies remained. Ultimately, 57 studies were included in this systematic review. Various visual indices were employed in clinical studies for quantifying dental prosthesis plaque area. A meta‐analysis was performed on 12 computerized planimetric assessment studies. The estimated pooled percentage plaque coverage area, as measured using the computerized planimetric assessments, was 37.06% (95% CI: 25.89%–48.23%). The heterogeneity in the meta‐analysis was “considerable.” In a subgroup analysis according to the software used, the heterogeneity within the Adobe Photoshop group was much reduced, I
2 = 0% (p = 0.734).

The existing evidence demonstrated poor removable prosthesis cleanliness among adult patients. Furthermore, there is a lack of standardized plaque quantification methods for both research and clinical applications, with most studies relying on visual indices for plaque assessment.