## 3 Results

Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Variables** & **Yes** & **No** & **Sometimes** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Rests} & 310 (68.4\%) & 98 (21.9\%) & 39 (8.7\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Retention} & 301 (67.3\%) & 111 (24.8\%) & 35 (7.8\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Reciprocation} & 227 (52.4\%) & 152 (35.1\%) & 54 (12.5\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Major connectors} & 269 (60.2\%) & 128 (28.6\%) & 50 (11.2\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Indirect retention} & 242 (55.0\%) & 144 (31.8\%) & 54 (12.3\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Guide planes} & 228 (51.8\%) & 144 (32.7\%) & 68 (15.5\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Base retention} & 256 (58.2\%) & 140 (31.8\%) & 44 (10.0\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Areas to be contoured} & 228 (51.8\%) & 111 (25.2\%) & 101 (23.0\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Arch classification} & 270 (61.4\%) & 88 (20.0\%) & 82 (18.6\%) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Material to be used for denture base or metal for metal framework?} & \multirow{2}{*}{323 (72.3\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{48 (10.7\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{76 (17.0\%)} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Indicate teeth number?} & \multirow{2}{*}{379 (83.7\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{32 (7.2\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{31 (7.0\%)} \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Responses of the participants for cast removable partial dentures (N = 453). specified by 41.5% of the participants, and 40.4% failed to mention it. Only 37.7% of the dentists mentioned the type of metal alloy for FPD fabrication, as presented in Table 3.  
For effective communication with dental technicians, nearly 43% (192) of the dentists did not draw the restoration design on the work authorization. However, only 21.9% (99) drew it on paper, and 32.2% (146) drew it on the cast. The majority (66.7%) requested a metal trial from the dental technicians, with 10.8% (49) failing to mention this, and 348 (76.8%) dentists preferred direct communication with the technician. In addition, nearly 44% (196) of the dentists chose to discuss the case in person with the technician, 38.6% (175) preferred to communicate through a telephone call, and 8.8% (40) opted for email contact. Upon receiving the restoration from the dental technician, about 182 (40.2%) dentists were satisfied with the design, 187 (41.3%) required alterations in the restorative design, and 61 (13.5%) participants were not satisfied with the design (Figure 2). Concerning changing the dental laboratory, the majority of the dentist (64.0% (290)) did not want to change, and 14.8% (67) wanted to work with a new laboratory. Those dentists who did change their labs chose 6 months (13.2%), 1 year (10.4), and 2 years (4.2%) as the average duration before a change. The regression analysis for this study showed a constant R-squared (R\({}^{2}\)) value of 0.046 and adjusted R-squared (AR\({}^{2}\)) value of 0.031. Regarding the comparison of the demographic characteristics with the responses of the participants, a significant relation was noted for academic designation (\(p=0.006\)). This finding was supported by a small t-value, indicating that the difference between the mean values was small, as presented in Table 4. Furthermore, the B value of academic designation to the responses (B = 0.027) was significant.