Survey of prosthodontic impression procedures for complete dentures in general dental practice in the United Kingdom

The effect of bioelectric and manual impressions on quality of complete dentures and quality of life: A cross over pilot study

Purpose

To compare the quality of complete dentures and quality of life of participants rehabilitated by using TENS (Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation) facilitated impression making with manual impressions.

Material and methods

Ten completely edentulous participants were enrolled in the crossover, pilot study. Participants were randomized in 2 groups. Five participants in each group were rehabilitated by dentures fabricated with TENS facilitated definitive impression technique (group T) and conventional impression technique (group C). In group T, Bioelectric border molding was done for the participants, that uses electric stimulation of the nerves supplying the muscles. In group C, incremental border molding using modeling plastic impression compound was carried out. Participants in each group used the dentures for 3 months. After 3 months, OHIP-EDENT questionnaire responses were obtained from the participants to observe the oral health related quality of life. A dental specialist recorded denture quality by Kapur scoring criteria. After one month wash period, the treatment was swapped between the groups. OHIP-EDENT scores and Kapur score were recorded for the alternate dentures after 3 months of use. Descriptive analysis was followed by Mann Whitney test to compare the overall scores between group T and group C for OHIP-EDENT, the scores for individual domains of OHIP-EDENT, and Kapur score for denture evaluation (α = 0.05).

Results

The overall OHIP-EDENT scores within each domain were less in group T when compared with the scores in group C and Kapur score for group T was more than group C. The difference was statistically significant i.e. P = 0.002 & 0.003 respectively.

Conclusions

Less OHIP-EDENT scores in group T imply better perception of quality of life of individuals due to better performance of stomatognathic system. The higher Kapur scores in group T signifies better quality of dentures when TENS was used for definitive impression making.

The effect of clinical interventions on the oral health-related quality of life in older adults

This paper reviews the literature to assess the effectiveness of oral health interventions in influencing oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in older adults. Clinical studies published in 2010 onwards reporting oral health interventions in older adults and subsequent changes in OHRQoL were systematically searched in Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. Reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis criteria. Eligibility evaluation and data abstraction from eligible studies were guided by predefined PICO questions and bias assessment by the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The search retrieved 144 articles. Of the 20 articles that met the eligibility criteria, 45% (9) reported a statistically significant improvement in OHRQoL. The majority of studies were conducted in adults with complete edentulism (70%) and mainly focused on implant provision to support a removable prosthesis (30%). The search indicates the limited scope of current literature on geriatric dental interventions, focusing mainly on denture realignments, denture fabrication and implant placement. Although the majority of the oral health interventions focused on edentulism and removable prostheses, there are many areas of oral health interventions and their potential impact on OHRQoL in this demographic group that have yet to be explored.

Longevity of complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Patients and clinicians are aware of the efficacy and benefits of complete dentures, but evidence regarding their longevity is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the literature describing the longevity of complete dentures and to review variations in longevity by denture type and duration of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched by using key terms: MEDLINE, CINAHL (EBSCO), Dentistry and Oral Sciences Databases, and The Cochrane Library. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed according to an established protocol and data extracted. Reference lists of identified studies were examined. Risk of bias was assessed by using the AXIS tool. Weighted means and weighted standard deviations were calculated. Pooled complete denture failure proportions were estimated by using random effects models based on the DerSimonian and Laird method.

RESULTS

The search yielded 21 607 unique abstracts, of which 273 met the inclusion criteria. Assessment of the full-text articles reduced this number to 42. Of these, 24 studies were rated as having low risk of bias and 18 as very low. The weighted mean ±standard deviation longevity of maxillary complete dentures was 10.3 ±3.8 years, of mandibular dentures was 8.6 ±2.6 years, and of both maxillary and mandibular dentures was 10.8 ±4.7 years. The pooled failure proportion for complete dentures observed for 2 years or less was 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-0.10), 5 to 6 years was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), and 10 years or more was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Complete dentures, fabricated primarily in university settings, were found to have a weighted mean ±standard deviation longevity of 10.1 ±4.0 years. The failure rate of these prostheses increased with denture age, and the longevity of maxillary dentures was greater than that of mandibular dentures.

Effectiveness of a simplified method for final impression in complete denture treatment: A pragmatic clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare two methods for final impression during the fabrication of complete dentures: a traditional method using custom trays (T-group) and a simplified method using the trial denture baseplate (S-group).

METHODS

A pragmatic clinical trial was conducted among edentulous individuals referred for conventional denture treatment. A consecutive sample of edentulous patients was assigned to two groups by cluster randomisation according to the final impression strategy, 30 in the T-group and 38 in the S-group. In the T-group, an auto-polymerising acrylic resin custom tray was used for impression; in the S-group, the final impression was performed using the try-in dentures. For both groups, zinc oxide eugenol paste was used as the impression material. The quality of the dentures was assessed using two rating scales (Functional Assessment of the Dentures and Kapur method). Moreover, clinical time for denture fabrication, number of post-insertion appointments for adjustments, patient satisfaction and post-treatment oral health-related quality of life impacts were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups regarding prosthodontic and patient-reported outcomes. The S-group demanded less clinical time (P = 0.002), with a 23.3% mean reduction in clinical time (P = 0.002) and lower number of appointments until the delivery of the dentures (S-group = 4.18 vs T-group = 5.0; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the alternative method for final impression is less time-consuming and has similar clinical outcomes when compared to the traditional final impression method. Findings suggest that this alternative may be considered when efficiency is a critical issue in healthcare services.

Masticatory performance of different impression methods for complete denture fabrication: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of conventional complete dentures fabricated using two different impression methods on masticatory performance and factors relating to masticatory performance in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A crossover randomized controlled trial was performed with edentulous patients requiring maxillomandibular complete dentures. Mandibular complete dentures were fabricated using two different methods. The conventional method (C) used a custom tray border molded with an impression compound and a silicone. The simplified method (S) used a stock tray and an alginate. Participants were randomly divided into the two groups. In the C-S group, the conventional method was used first, followed by the simplified method; the order was reversed in the SC group. Adjustments were performed four times. The wash out period was 1 month. Masticatory performance as assessed by the mixing of a color-changeable chewing gum (mixing ability). Maximum occlusal force, occlusal contact area, and perceived chewing ability were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients underwent randomization and 24 participants completed the trial. With regard to occlusal contact area, the conventional method showed significantly larger occlusal contact area than the simplified method. No significant differences were observed between the two methods regarding mixing ability, maximum occlusal force, and perceived chewing ability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that complete dentures fabricated with the conventional method had a significantly larger occlusal contact area than those made using the simplified method.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Complete dentures fabricated with the conventional method, comprising a preliminary impression using alginate in a stock tray followed by a final impression using silicone impression material in a border molded custom tray, resulted in fewer post-insertion adjustments than the simplified method, potentially contributing to earlier stability of new dentures.

Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Simplified edentulous jaw impression techniques have gained popularity, while their validity has not yet been evaluated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the trueness of maxillary edentulous jaw impressions made with irreversible hydrocolloid (ALG), polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), PVS modified with zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) (PVSM), and an intraoral scanner (TRI) with a conventionally border-molded ZOE impression (control).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve edentulous maxillary impressions were made with the impression techniques. The analog impressions were scanned using a laboratory scanner, imported into 3-dimensional comparison software, and superimposed against the corresponding control. Trueness was evaluated by calculating the effective deviation known as root mean square (RMS) for the entire surface (ES) and for specific regions of interest such as peripheral border, inner seal, midpalatal suture, ridge, and posterior palatal seal. The secondary outcomes for this study were the patients' perception of the impression techniques. Statistical analyses with the Wilcoxon tests were carried out (α=.05).

RESULTS

For ES, significant differences were found when comparing ALG (1.21 ±0.35 mm) with PVS (0.75 ±0.17 mm; P=.008), PVSM (0.75 ±0.19 mm; P=.012), and TRI (0.70 ±0.18 mm; P=.006) but not among the other groups. Significant differences were found for peripheral border when comparing ALG (2.03 ±0.55 mm) with PVS (1.12 ±0.32 mm; P=.006), PVSM (1.05 ±0.29 mm; P=.003), and TRI (1.38 ±0.25 mm; P=.008), as well as TRI and PVSM (P=.028). Significant differences were also found for inner seal when comparing ALG (0.74 ±0.36 mm) with PVSM (0.52 ±0.13 mm; P=.041), as well as TRI (0.8 ±0.25 mm) versus PVS (0.56 ±0.14 mm; P=.005) and PVSM (P=.005). The difference at the ridge was significant when comparing PVS (0.18 ±0.07 mm) with PVSM (0.28 ±0.19 mm; P=.015) but not among the other groups. A significant difference was also found for posterior palatal seal when comparing PVS (0.55 ±0.41 mm) with PVSM (0.60 ±0.43 mm; P=.034). Patient perceptions showed significantly better satisfaction scores for ALG (1.83 ±2.03) and PVS (3.17 ±2.40) than for TRI (4.08 ±2.71), PVSM (4.58 ±2.35), and ZOE (6.83 ±1.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Edentulous impressions made with PVS, PVSM, and TRI had similar deviations and may yield clinically acceptable results. Irreversible hydrocolloids are contraindicated for definitive impression making in completely edentulous jaws.

Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques? A 10-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The use of a simplified method (S) of fabricating complete dentures has been shown to be more cost-efficient than the traditional method (T), and there are no negative consequences that detract from the cost savings in the short term. However, it is not clear whether this remains constant over a decade. The objective of this study was to clarify patients' perspectives and determine any differences between the dentures fabricated with these two different techniques after a decade of use.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Edentate individuals participated in a randomized controlled clinical trial and completed a 6-month follow-up from 2001 to 2003 (T group n = 50; S group n = 54). For this 10-year follow-up, they were interviewed by telephone. The assessment included whether the denture was still in use or replaced, the condition of the dentures, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Between and within-group differences and the factors that cause deterioration of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) were determined.

RESULTS

Among 54 responders (25 T and 29 S), 14T and 21S kept the original dentures. Both groups were similar in ratings of satisfaction and OHRQoL (maxilla T: 80.0 S: 86.0, p = 0.36; mandibular; T: 66.1 S: 72.3, p = 0.48; OHRQoL T: 111.1 S: 108.5, p = 0.46). Irrespective of fabrication method, discomfort, chewing difficulty and esthetics were the factors that deteriorate OHRQoL (adjusted r = 0.76, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the simplified method remains more cost-efficient than the traditional method over a 10-year period. (IRB approval: A09-E71-12 B McGill University, trial registry: ClinicalTrial.org; NCT02289443).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two impression methods for the fabrication of mandibular complete dentures

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost and to evaluate cost-effectiveness of fabricating mandibular complete dentures (CDs) using two different impression methods.

METHODS

A crossover randomized controlled trial including 27 edentulous participants was performed. Mandibular CDs were fabricated using two different impression methods, as follows: (i) conventional method using a custom tray border moulded with impression compound and silicone and (ii) simplified method using a stock tray and alginate. Cost analysis was performed from a clinical practitioner's perspective. The total cost included labor cost, which was calculated using the time spent by dentists and technicians in fabricating CDs and their hourly wages, and the material costs, which were calculated using purchase prices. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, we used general patient satisfaction as an indicator of effectiveness and calculated the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). ICER represents the cost per one unit of effectiveness.

RESULTS

The trial was completed by 24 participants. The total cost was 43,904 Japanese Yen (JPY) (330.91 EUR / 395.78 USD) for the conventional method and 39,792 JPY (299.93 EUR / 358.70 USD) for the simplified method, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). The ICER showed a cost of 633 JPY (4.77 EUR / 5.70 USD) for every one point change in general patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that the total cost of the conventional method was significantly higher than that of the simplified method (p<0.001).

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The conventional impression method for fabricating mandibular CDs, which took additional 633 JPY (4.77 EUR / 5.70 USD) for improvement of general satisfaction, is supposed to be clinically meaningful¹.

A randomized controlled trial of the different impression methods for the complete denture fabrication: Patient reported outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of conventional complete dentures (CD) fabricated using two different impression methods on patient-reported outcomes in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

A cross-over RCT was performed with edentulous patients, required maxillomandibular CDs. Mandibular CDs were fabricated using two different methods. The conventional method used a custom tray border moulded with impression compound and a silicone. The simplified used a stock tray and an alginate. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. The C-S group had the conventional method used first, followed by the simplified. The S-C group was in the reverse order. Adjustment was performed four times. A wash out period was set for 1 month. The primary outcome was general patient satisfaction, measured using visual analogue scales, and the secondary outcome was oral health-related quality of life, measured using the Japanese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous (OHIP-EDENT-J) questionnaire scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-four participants completed the trial. With regard to general patient satisfaction, the conventional method was significantly more acceptable than the simplified. No significant differences were observed between the two methods in the OHIP-EDENT-J scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed CDs fabricated with a conventional method were significantly more highly rated for general patient satisfaction than a simplified.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CDs, fabricated with the conventional method that included a preliminary impression made using alginate in a stock tray and subsequently a final impression made using silicone in a border moulded custom tray resulted in higher general patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000009875.

A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials

Objectives

There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.

Methods

Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.

Results

Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7–67.3%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.

Clinical significance

Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures.

Trial Registration: ISRCTN 01528038.



This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014.

Cost-effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of silicone and alginate impressions for complete dentures.

Methods

Cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK single centre, double blind, controlled, crossover clinical trial. Taking the perspective of the healthcare sector, effectiveness is measured using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) which provides a single index value for health status that may be combined with time to produce quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-EDENT). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios are presented representing the additional cost per one unit gained.

Results

Mean cost was higher in the silicone impression group (£388.57 vs. £363.18). Negligible between-group differences were observed in QALY gains; the silicone group had greater mean OHIP-EDENT gains. The additional cost using silicone was £3.41 per change of one point in the OHIP-EDENT.

Conclusions

The silicone group was more costly, driven by the cost of materials. Changes in the EQ-5D and QALY gains over time and between arms were not statistically significant. Change in OHIP-EDENT score showed greater improvement in the silicone group and the difference between arms was statistically significant. Given negligible QALY gains and low level of resource use, results must be treated with caution. It is difficult to make robust claims about the comparative cost-effectiveness.

Clinical significance

Silicone impressions for complete dentures improve patients’ quality of life (OHIP-EDENT score). The extra cost of silicone impressions is £30 per patient. Dentists, patients and health care funders need to consider the clinical and financial value of silicone impressions. Different patients, different dentists, different health funders will have individual perceptions and judgements.

ISRCTN01528038.

NIHR-RfPB grant PB-PG-0408-16300.



This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014.

Método simplificado versus convencional de confecção de próteses totais: práticas adotadas pelos Cirurgiões-Dentistas

Introdução: A fim de reduzir custos e tempo clínico envolvidos com o tratamento, Dentistas têm utilizado métodos simplificados, omitindo ou abreviando partes da técnica de confecção das próteses totais. Objetivo: Levantar as práticas utilizadas pelos Cirurgiões-Dentistas para a confecção de próteses totais. Material e método: Os dados foram levantados por meio de um formulário eletrônico contendo perguntas relativas ao perfil e aos procedimentos clínicos utilizados, a fim de quantificar o uso de métodos simplificados e convencionais, bem como para determinar a relação com o perfil desses profissionais. Os resultados foram analisados por meio de análise de Aglomerados. Resultado: As respostas foram dadas, em sua maioria, por homens, tendo a prática clínica como sua principal fonte de renda e clínica privada ou conveniada como ambiente principal de trabalho (n=119). Grande parte dos entrevistados relatou realizar duas moldagens por arcada, utilização de articulador semiajustável com arco facial, determinação de plano oclusal por meio de guias anatômicos, utilização de meios métricos para análise da dimensão vertical de oclusão e determinação direta da relação cêntrica. O próprio Cirurgião-Dentista relatou ser o responsável na fase de seleção de dentes. A estatística identificou dois Aglomerados, com base nas características demográficas e na prática clínica, sendo um grupo formado por generalistas adeptos de perfis mais simplificados e outro formado por profissionais mais especializados em prótese que realizam técnicas convencionais. Conclusão: A adoção de técnicas simplificadas é associada àqueles Dentistas com perfil mais generalista, enquanto protesistas tendem a trabalhar mais de acordo com a Academia.

Complete denture impression techniques practiced by private dental practitioners: a survey

Impression making is an important step in fabricating complete dentures. A survey to know the materials used and techniques practiced while recording complete denture impressions was conducted. It is disheartening to know that 33 % practitioners still use base plate custom trays to record final impressions. 8 % still use alginate for making final impressions. An acceptable technique for recording CD impressions is suggested.

Effect of dentist's clinical experience on treatment satisfaction of a complete denture

The relationship between the prosthodontic experience of dentists and satisfaction of complete denture wearers remains unknown. To investigate whether a prosthodontist's clinical experience affects treatment satisfaction of a complete denture wearer. From April 2004 to July 2006, we conducted a randomised controlled trial at two centres, including 74 edentulous patients; of these, 32 and 30 were randomly allocated to the ED or ID group, respectively. All the patients rated their satisfaction with dentures, including general satisfaction and satisfaction of chewing ability, speaking, cleaning, stability, retention, comfort and aesthetics. These satisfaction ratings were measured by a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Perceived chewing ability to foods, divided into five grades, was measured using a questionnaire. The mastication index (MI) was calculated for each grade. General satisfaction and satisfaction of speaking, stability and retention were significantly higher in the ED than in the ID group (P = 0·049, 0·003, 0·019 and 0·041, respectively). No significant difference existed between the MI of the ED (71·3 ± 18·4) and ID group (64·1 ± 16·53). However, the perceived chewing ability of grade 5 food, whose texture was the hardest among all the grades, was significantly higher in the ED group than in the ID group. Within its limitations, this study showed that a clinician's prosthodontic experience affects a complete denture wearer's satisfaction ratings.

A randomized trial on simplified and conventional methods for complete denture fabrication: cost analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to quantify the costs of complete denture fabrication by a simplified method compared with a conventional protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of edentulous patients needing conventional maxillary and mandibular complete dentures was randomly divided into group S, which received dentures fabricated by a simplified method, and group C, which received conventionally fabricated dentures. We calculated direct and indirect costs for each participant including unscheduled procedures. This study assessed 19 and 20 participants allocated into groups S and C, respectively, and comparisons between groups were conducted by the Mann-Whitney and Student's t-test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Complete denture fabrication demanded median time periods of 173.2 and 284.5 minutes from the operator for groups S and C respectively, and 46.6 and 61.7 minutes from the dental assistant (significant differences, p < 0.05). There was no difference between groups regarding postinsertion adjustments. Group S showed lower values for costs with materials and time spent by patients than group C during the fabrication stage, but not during adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

The median direct cost of complete denture treatment was 34.9% lower for the simplified method. It can be concluded that the simplified method is less costly for patients and the health system when compared with a conventional protocol for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients.

First impressions count

The art and craft of recording intra-oral anatomy successfully with dental impressions relies on the interaction of three critical factors--the 'golden triangle of impression-taking': an appreciation of the anatomical features to be recorded, the material used to take the impression and the clinical handling/operative technique applied. This paper aims to discuss the three factors and their inter-relationships, detailing clinical tips for successful, reproducible and consistent outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Obtaining accurate dental impressions is the key to success in a wide range of clinical restorative procedures. This paper offers clinical advice to practitioners to plan and then take predictable, good quality impressions for their restorative cases.

IMPROVDENT: improving dentures for patient benefit. A crossover randomised clinical trial comparing impression materials for complete dentures

Background

According to the UK Adult Dental Health Survey (2009) 15% of adults aged 65–74, 30% aged 75–84 and 47% aged >85 years are edentulous and require complete dentures. Patients’ quality of life and nutrition status are affected by poor dentures. The quality of the dental impression is the most important issue for improving the fit and comfort of new dentures. There is paucity of RCT evidence for which impression material is best for complete dentures construction. This study aims to compare two impression materials for effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Methods/Design

IMPROVDENT is a double-blind crossover trial comparing the use of alginate and silicone, two commonly used denture impression materials, in terms of patient preference and cost-effectiveness. Eighty five edentulous patients will be recruited and provided with two sets of dentures, similar in all aspects except for the impression material used (alginate or silicone). Patients will try both sets of dentures for a two-week period, unadjusted, to become accustomed to the feel of the new dentures (habituation period). Patients will then wear each set of dentures for a period of 8 weeks (in random order) during which time the dentures will be adjusted for optimum comfort. Finally, patients will be given both sets of dentures for a further two weeks to wear whichever denture they prefer (confirmation period).

Patients will be asked about quality of life and to rate dentures on function and comfort at the end of each trial period and asked which set they prefer at the end of the habituation period (unadjusted denture preference) and confirmation period (adjusted denture preference). A health economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of producing dentures from the two materials. A qualitative study will investigate the impact of dentures on behaviour and quality of life.

Funding: IMPROVDENT is funded by NIHR RfPB (PB-PG-0408-16300).

Discussion

This trial aims to provide evidence on the costs and quality of dentures cast from two different commonly used impression materials; the intention is to significantly impact on the quality of denture production within NHS dentistry.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN01528038

UKCRN Portfolio ID: 8305

The elastomers for complete denture impression: A review of the literature

This article reviews the current trends in materials used for complete denture impression. Peer-reviewed articles, published in English and in French between 1954 and 2007, were identified through a MEDLINE search (Pubmed and Elsevier) and a hand search of relevant textbooks and annual publications. Emphasis was made on the characteristics of the elastomers, their manipulation, the different techniques used, and the quality of the impression obtained. The combination of excellent physical properties, handling characteristics, and unlimited dimensional stability assures the popularity of these impression materials.

Efficient resource use in simplified complete denture fabrication

PURPOSE

Conventional dentures will remain the only treatment available to most edentulous people for the foreseeable future. In this study, we compared the efficiency of two methods of making complete conventional dentures-the traditional academic standard (T) and a simplified technique (S) used in private practice. We have previously shown that they produce similar levels of patient satisfaction and denture quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were gathered during a randomized controlled clinical trial of 122 subjects from initial examination until 6-month follow-up. For this report, the direct costs of providing one set of conventional complete dentures by T or S techniques were estimated. All materials used were recorded and their cost was calculated in Canadian dollars (CAN$). The costs of fabrication in an outside laboratory were added. Clinician's labor time was recorded for every procedure. Between-group comparisons for each clinical procedure were carried out with independent t-tests. The number of patients in each group who needed postdelivery treatment was compared with Chi-square tests. The effect of group assignment and of treatment difficulty on outcomes was analyzed with multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The mean total cost of the T method was significantly greater than S (CAN$166.3; p < 0.001), and clinicians spent 90 minutes longer (p < 0.001) on clinical care. The difficulty of the case had no significant influence on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the S method is the more cost-efficient method and that there are no negative consequences that detract from the cost savings.

A survey of U.S. prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to survey members of The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) to evaluate current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics in the United States. In addition, those methods were compared with methods and materials taught in U.S. dental schools via a second survey sent to the chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was mailed to all 1762 active ACP members in the United States in 2003. A slightly modified questionnaire was also distributed to chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments in the 54 U.S. dental schools. Data analysis was performed via frequency distribution and chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and forty-five questionnaires were returned by members of the ACP (54% return rate) and 42 questionnaires were returned by the U.S. dental schools (78% return rate). The majority of the reporting prosthodontists (88%) and dental schools (98%) use a border-molded custom tray for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. The most popular material for border molding was plastic modeling compound (67% of reporting ACP members, and 95% of the responding dental schools). Variability of the materials used for final impressions was observed, with the most popular materials being polyvinylsiloxane for the ACP members (36%) and polysulfide for the dental schools (64%). Statistically significant differences were found in the materials used for border molding by prosthodontists based on the time elapsed since completion of prosthodontic training. No differences were found in the materials used for impression of edentulous arches based on years of experience. Geographic location did not influence the materials and methods used by prosthodontists for complete denture final impressions.

CONCLUSIONS

There was variability of the materials and techniques used for final impressions by ACP members and dental schools; however, overall there was an agreement on the materials and techniques used by prosthodontists and dental schools. Distinct trends for increasing use of polyvinylsiloxane and polyether for border molding procedures and impressions of edentulous arches were observed both in members of the ACP and in the U.S. dental schools.

Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the quality of conventional complete dentures fabricated with two different techniques. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted to compare traditional (T) and simplified (S) methods of making complete conventional dentures on patients' ratings of satisfaction, comfort and function at 3 and 6 months following delivery. The quality of the prostheses was rated by prosthodontists at 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-two male and female edentulous individuals, aged 45-75 years, were randomly allocated into groups that received dentures made with either T or S methods. Following delivery, patients' ratings of several denture-related factors were measured using 100mm visual analogue scales, and denture quality was assessed by blinded prosthodontists using ratings on a validated quantitative scale.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in patient ratings for overall satisfaction (3 months: mean T = 83 mm, mean S = 83 mm, P = 0.97; 6 months: mean T = 79 mm, mean S = 79 mm, P = 0.96) or in prosthodontists' ratings of denture quality (T = 66, S = 63; P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

These results show that the quality of complete dentures does not suffer when manufacturing techniques are simplified to save time and materials. Dental educators should consider these findings when re-designing prosthodontic training programs.

Current concepts and techniques in complete denture final impression procedures

PURPOSE

In 2001, a survey of U.S. dental schools was conducted to determine which concepts, techniques and materials are currently prevalent in the teaching of final impression procedures for complete dentures in the predoctoral clinical curriculum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire was mailed to the chairperson of the prosthodontic/restorative departments of 54 U.S. dental schools. Of these, 44 schools returned the completed survey resulting in a response rate of 82%.

RESULTS

Results from this survey show that the majority of schools (71%) teach the selective-pressure technique for final impression making; the majority of the schools (64%) use modeling plastic impression compound for border molding the final impression tray; 39% of the schools do not place vent holes in the final impression tray, 30% of schools place more than one hole and 27% place one hole only; the majority of the schools (98%) are using custom trays for final impressions. Ninety-eight percent of the schools are border molding the custom tray and 70% of schools are using a visible light-cured (VLC) composite resin material to make the trays. Thirty-six percent of the schools are teaching the Boucher impression technique and 34% are teaching the modified Boucher impression technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Predoctoral clinical complete denture educational programs agree on many aspects of final impression making, however, there is variability in their teachings regarding the impression philosophy and the materials used.

A retrospective comparison of two definitive impression techniques and their associated postinsertion adjustments in complete denture prosthodontics

PURPOSE

To compare the number of postinsertion adjustment visits required by edentulous patients whose dentures were made from border-molded definitive impressions using modeling plastic impression compound (traditional technique) with patients whose dentures were made from border-molded definitive impressions using heavy-body vinyl polysiloxane impression material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective clinical study, 78 patients were treated with the traditional technique (custom impression trays border molded with gray modeling plastic impression compound) and 78 were treated with the modified technique (custom impression trays border molded with heavy-body vinyl polysiloxane impression material). In both techniques, definitive wash impressions were made with light-body vinyl polysiloxane impression material. Postinsertion visits were quantified for 1 year after the dentures were inserted.

RESULTS

The average number of adjustment visits for patients treated with the traditional technique was 2.68. The average number of adjustment visits for patients treated with the modified technique was 2.68. The data were compared using Student t tests. There was no significant difference in the number of adjustments required for patients whose dentures were made with either technique (t = 0.000, p = 1.00). There was no significant difference in the number of post-insertion visits required by patients from either population.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this clinical study, border-molding custom denture impression trays with vinyl polysiloxane impression material provided similar results in terms of postinsertion visits for one year as compared to dentures made from impressions border molded with modeling plastic impression compound.

Factors that affect the adhesion of two irreversible hydrocolloid materials to two custom tray materials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Little evidence is available on the length of time that adhesive should be allowed to dry before irreversible hydrocolloid impression making.

PURPOSE

This study investigated the effect of adhesive drying times on the bond strengths of 2 irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials to 2 "custom" tray materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1,632 specimens were tested: 816 in tensile tests and 816 in tests of the shear bond strength (megapascals) of 2 irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials to an autopolymerizing and a visible light-polymerizing acrylic resin tray material. In the first part of the investigation, a single coat of adhesive was applied to specimen plates that simulated the custom impression tray surface; in the second part, a second coat of adhesive was applied after the irreversible hydrocolloid was removed, and the effect of this second coating on bond strength was examined. In both parts, the adhesive was allowed to dry for a range of times (0 to 8 minutes at 30-second intervals, for a total of 17 time periods) before the addition of the impression material. The specimen plates were placed in a humidor and separated in a universal testing machine operated at a crosshead speed of 100 mm/min with 0- to 5-kN load cell. Data from each of the 1,632 specimens were collected and evaluated with analysis of variance, regression analysis, and t tests (P<.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences in mean bond strengths were found between specimens with a 4-minute adhesive drying time (0.179 MPa tensile, 0.068 MPa shear) and specimens with a 0-minute drying time (0.065 MPa tensile, 0.015 MPa shear). Any period over 4 minutes produced no significant difference. The mean bond strengths of the single-coated specimens were 0.179 MPa (tensile) and 0.076 MPa (shear). These values were significantly greater than those for specimens with a second adhesive layer (0.136 MPa tensile, 0.035 MPa shear) over all time periods. Mean tensile bond strengths (0.158 MPa) were consistently higher than shear bond strengths (0.056 MPa) for all combinations of tray material, adhesive application, and time.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that adhesive applied to the autopolymerized and light-polymerized custom tray materials tested should be allowed to dry for at least 4 minutes before irreversible hydrocolloid is applied. Better results were obtained when the adhesive layer from a failed irreversible hydrocolloid impression was removed and replaced rather than overlaid with an additional adhesive coating.