Prosthodontics & Occlusion · patient case with 2 questions
Financial constraints with 90% non-restorable teeth
Scenario: A patient with FINANCIAL PROBLEMS and 90% of his teeth NON-RESTORABLE.
Question 1
What is the best treatment?
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Partial dentures, retaining the restorable teeth
- A. Keyed per the source. The recaller noted the case specified that SOME teeth WERE restorable and did not need to be removed. Retaining sound abutments preserves alveolar bone, proprioception, support and retention, and a removable partial denture is markedly less expensive than implants — a decisive factor for a patient with financial constraints.
- B. Implants are the most expensive option and are directly excluded by the stated financial constraints.
- C. Rendering a patient edentulous with no prosthetic plan fails the standard of care.
- D. Extracting ALL teeth including restorable ones violates the principle of conserving healthy tooth structure. It is the defensible choice only when the remaining teeth genuinely have a hopeless prognosis — which is the reading if '90% non-restorable' is taken at face value.
Note: ⚠️ CONTESTED. If 90% of teeth are truly non-restorable, complete dentures is the more standard answer; the recaller chose partial dentures based on case detail (some teeth restorable) not fully captured in the recall. Read the actual patient box carefully on exam day — the number of RETAINABLE abutments decides this item.
Question 2
If the dentist does not give the patient all the treatment options, which ethical principle is violated?
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. Autonomy
- A. Justice concerns fairness in the distribution of care and non-discrimination in delivering it.
- B. Veracity is truthfulness. It is closely related here, but the specific failure to present the full range of options maps to autonomy and informed consent.
- C. Correct. AUTONOMY is the patient's right to SELF-DETERMINATION. Withholding treatment options — often because the dentist has judged the patient cannot afford them — removes the patient's ability to make an informed choice and is a paternalistic violation of autonomy. The patient decides what they can afford, not the dentist.
- D. Non-maleficence is the duty to do no harm — keeping skills current, knowing one's limits and referring appropriately.
Note: This is a favourite INBDE construction: 'dentist explains all treatment options' = AUTONOMY, every time.
Practice patient cases Prosthodontics & Occlusion study notes