Dental

Communication

Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(3): 410-414 (2017)

The role of different impression methods for complete

denture prosthodontics

Sara Nikoee Bazvand

, Farshad Khamchin Moghaddam

, Nazila Najari Dizaji

and

Shahin Shams Lahijani

Postgraduate student, Prosthodontics Department, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical

Science, Tehran, Iran

Assistant Professor, Prosthodontics Department,Dental School, QomUniversity of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

Assistant Professor, Surgery Department,Dental School, QomUniversity of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study was to determine dentist’s desire for role of different impression methods for complete denture

prosthodontics.The 1378 questioners form randomly distributed among dentists. The form included questions related

about their idea for application and effect of boarder modeling materials in complete denture prosthodontics. Among

the total forms, 657 forms fully  lled, signature and returned by the dentists. Results: Acceding to the data, the

highest percent of the dentists included in this study was graduated 11-15 years ago (28%). Also, 73% of the dentists

always apply two complete dentures prosthodontics. 73% of the dentists answered for always use administration of

special trays. 64% of the dentists answered that they always use impression before border modeling and 25 % of them

never use this. 89% of the dentists use compound material for border modeling. 64% of the patients use zinc oxide

and eugenol (ZOE) and the 25% use Alginate. Also, poly ether and poly sulfate were desired by 10.5 and 0.5% of the

dentists, respectively. As seen there are different ideas among dentist for different impression methods for complete

denture prosthodontics.

KEY WORDS: IMPRESSION METHODS, MATERIAL, COMPLETE DENTURE PROSTHODONTICS

410

ARTICLE INFORMATION:

*Corresponding Author:

Received 25

June, 2017

Accepted after revision 21

Sep, 2017

BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455

Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA

Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal

NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF: 4.006

reserved.

Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/

DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.3/12

Sara Nikoee Bazvand etal.

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT IMPRESSION METHODS FOR COMPLETE DENTURE PROSTHODONTICS 411

INTRODUCTION

An impression is a record, a facsimile of mouth tissues

taken at an unstrained rest position or in various posi-

tions of displacement (Devan, 2005). In the case of an

edentulous arch, this requires a unique combination of

managing movable soft tissue commensurate with inte-

grating different materials and a technique for accurate

reproduction (Petrie etal., 2005). Stability of complete

lower dentures has challenged dentists and patients alike.

In particular, “ at lower ridge” is associated with dif -

culties in providing successful dentures (McCord etal.

1992). Resorption rates vary from patient to patient and

some authors have postulated several etiological factors

related to residual (alveolar) ridge resorption, ranging

from localized pressure to systemic factors (Likeman,

1997). Making accurate  nal impression for complete

dentures is a multistage process that involves a prelimi-

nary impression, a customized  nal impression tray and

a  nal border impression (Zarb etal. 1990).

It is important to thoroughly examine the patient’s

mouth and select the most appropriate impression tech-

nique (Suenaga et al. 1997). A major requirement for

 nal impression of complete dentures is to develop the

peripheral contours to accommodate normal muscular

function and to ensure peripheral adaptation without

allowing air penetration between the future denture base

and the mucous membrane (Daou, 2010). Differences are

noticeable between the materials and methods currently

used by dentists for  nal impressions in complete den-

ture prosthodontics (Daou, 2010).

Even though the current generation of impres-

sion materials provides alternatives, making an initial

impression still can be dif cult when patients have sig-

ni cant resorption (Pyle, 1999). The concept of molding

the periphery of complete denture prosthesis to the sur-

rounding musculature has been accepted and taught for

about past decades (Drago, 2003). Anecdotal evidence

suggests that the impression techniques used in general

dental practice may vary from those taught at dental

schools (Drago, 2003). So, the aim of the study was to

determine dentist’s desire for role of different impression

methods for complete denture prosthodontics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cross sectional study was done using question-

ers on dentists during 2014-15. The 1378 questioners

form randomly distributed among dentists. The form

included questions related about their idea for applica-

tion and effect of boarder modeling materials in com-

plete denture prosthodontics. Among the total forms,

657 forms fully  lled, signature and returned by the

dentists. Then the data processed using excel software

using Microsoft of ce ver. 2010 and presented as fre-

quency and percent.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The result of the different impression methods for com-

plete denture prosthodontics is presented in  gs. 1-6.

The frequency of the dentists included into the study

based on their years of graduate is presented in  gure

1. As seen the highest percent of the dentists included

in this study was graduated 11-15 years ago (28%) and

only 11% was graduated less than 5 years

The frequency of the dentists answer for application

of 2 complete dentures prosthodontics is presented in

 gure 2. As observed 73% of the dentists always apply

two complete dentures prosthodontics, initial and  nal

while only 3 % sometimes used this.

As seen in  gure 3, 73% of the dentists answered for

always use administration of special trays and only 8 %

of the dentists never used special trays.

Also, 64% of the dentists answered that they always

use impression before border modeling and 25 % of

them never use this ( gure 4).

Additionally, 89% of the dentists use compound

material for border modeling while 11% of the dentists

desire to use poly ether materials ( gure 5).

Furthermore, 64% of the patients use ZOF and the

25% use Alginate. Also, poly ether and poly sulfate were

desired by 10.5 and 0.5% of the dentists, respectively

( gure 6).

As seen there are different ideas among dentist for

different impression methods for complete denture pros-

thodontics. Also, there was different for materials used

for complete denture prosthodontics among dentists.

Since the last decade, several investigators have rec-

ommended using newer elastomeric materials such as

polyvinylsiloxane and polyether for  nal impressions to

replace the older and more traditional materials (Petrie

etal., 2005). Four basic types of elastomer impression

materials are currently in use in the dental profession

such as silicone rubbers which polymerize by a conden-

sation reaction, polysul de (mercaptan) rubbers, poly-

ethers and silicones which polymerize an addition reac-

tion. The latter have been introduced relatively recently

and are also called polyvinylsiloxanes (Lacy etal., 1981).

There are many materials for the  nal impression,

such as gypsum, zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) paste, poly-

sul de rubber, polyether, polyvinyl siloxane and algi-

nate. Preferences vary much among dentists. However,

there is no evidence that one technique or material pro-

duces better long term results than another (Duncan and

Taylor, 2001). Many general practitioners use a single

alginate impression as the de nitive impression for

Sara Nikoee Bazvand etal.

412 THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT IMPRESSION METHODS FOR COMPLETE DENTURE PROSTHODONTICS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

FIGURE 1. The frequency of the dentists included into the study based

on their years of graduate

FIGURE 2. The frequency of the dentists answer for application of two

complete dentures prosthodontics (initial and  nal)

FIGURE 3. The frequency of the dentists answer for administration of special trays

Sara Nikoee Bazvand etal.

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT IMPRESSION METHODS FOR COMPLETE DENTURE PROSTHODONTICS 413

FIGURE 5. The frequency of the dentists answer for material used for border modeling

FIGURE 4. The frequency of the dentists answer for Impression before border

modeling

the construction of complete dentures, which con icts

with the teaching in practically all dental schools. It is,

therefore, of interest that a randomized controlled trial

found neither patient-assessed nor dentist-evaluated

differences between dentures fabricated according to

a traditional or a simpli ed method. The simple tech-

nique used alginate in a standard tray for the de nitive

impression, whereas the traditional technique included

an individual tray with border molding and polyether

for the  nal impression (Kawai etal., 2005). Although

impression materials differ in many aspects and a vari-

ety of techniques exist in taking the impressions, there

is no evidence to conclude that the clinical long-term

outcome of dentures fabricated using varying materi-

als and methods would differ signi cantly. These and

other aspects of variation in methods and techniques are

discussed in a review of an evidence base for complete

dentures (Carlsson, 2006).

It is reported complete dentures fabricated with the

conventional method that included a prelimi- nary

impression made using alginate in a stock tray and sub-

sequently a  nal impression made using silicone in a

border moulded custom tray resulted in higher general

patient satisfaction (Lepe et al. 2002). Currently, there

are a number of issues with prosthodontic protocols that

may provide underlying reasons why clinically signi -

cant differences are not produced in randomized con-

trolled trial. Prosthodontic trials can have numerous

Sara Nikoee Bazvand etal.

414 THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT IMPRESSION METHODS FOR COMPLETE DENTURE PROSTHODONTICS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

speci c confounding variables such as patient related

factors (ridge form, saliva  ow, mucosal quality, patient

expectation, psychological pro le, perceived aesthetics),

technical construction factors (occlusal form, impression

technique, processing methods, different technicians/

technical procedures, the full use, or not, of the recorded

sulcus depth) and dentist related factors (ability, edu-

cation, number of clinicians, velocity of seating of the

impression) (Dillon etal, 2008).

REFERENCES

Carlsson, G.E., 2006. Facts and fallacies: an evidence base for

complete dentures. J. Prosthodont. 12, 280–287.

Daou EE. 2010 The elastomers for complete denture impres-

sion: A review of the literature. The Saudi Dental Journal 22,

153–160.

Devan, M., 2005. Basic principles in impression making. J.

Prosthet. Dent. 93, 503–508.

Dillon S, Hyde TP, Brunton P.2008 A technique to construct

duplicate dentures for clinical research. Quintessence Journal

of Dental Technology 6:30–9.

Drago, C.J., 2003. A retrospective comparison of two de ni-

tive impression techniques and their associated postinsertion

adjustments in complete denture prosthodontics. J. Prostho-

dont. 12 (3), 192–197.

Duncan, J.P., Taylor, T.D., 2001. Teaching an abbreviated

impression technique for complete dentures in an undergradu-

ate dental curriculum. J. Prosthet. Dent. 85, 121–125.

Kawai, Y., Murakami, H., Shariati, B., Klemetti, E., Blom eld,

J.V., Billette, L. 2005. Do traditional techniques produce better

conventional dentures than simpli ed techniques? J. Dent. 33,

659–668.

Lacy, A.M., Bellman, T., Fukui, H., Jendersen, M., 1981. Time

dependent accuracy of elastomer impression materials. Part

I: condensation silicones. J. Prosthet. Dent. 45 (2), 209–

214.

Lepe, X., Johnson, G.H., Berg, J.C., Aw, T.C., Stroh, G.S., 2002.

Wettability, imbibition, and mass change of disinfected low

viscosity impression materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 88, 268–276.

Likeman PR. Tongue control of lower complete dentures: a

clinical hint. Br Dent J 1997;182:229-230.

McCord JF, Grant AA, Quayle AA. 1992 Treatment options

for the edentulous mandible. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent1:

19-23.

Petrie, C.S., Walker, M.P., Williams, K., 2005. A surveys of US

prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials

and methods for  nal impressions for complete denture pros-

thodontics. J. Prosthodont. 14 (4), 253–262.

Pyle, M.A., 1999. Impression technique for severely resorbed

mandibles in geriatric patients. JADA 130.

Suenaga K, Sato T, Nishigawa G, Minagi S. 1997 Relation-

ship between size of complete foundation area and resorption

of alveolar ridge in the edentulous mandible. J Oral Reha-

bil;24:315-319.

Zarb AZ, Bolender CL, Hickey JC, Carlsson GE.1990 Boucher’s

prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 10th ed. St

Louis: C V Mosby.