Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study

INTRODUCTION: Literature reveals that masticatory load on denture bearing tissues through complete dentures should be maximum on primary stress bearing areas and least on relief area in accordance with the histology of underlying tissues. A study to validate the existing beliefs was planned to compa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chopra, Sakshi, Gupta, Narendra Kumar, Tandan, Amrit, Dwivedi, Ravi, Gupta, Swati, Agarwal, Garima
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27041902
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.177108
_version_ 1782421187882647552
author Chopra, Sakshi
Gupta, Narendra Kumar
Tandan, Amrit
Dwivedi, Ravi
Gupta, Swati
Agarwal, Garima
author_facet Chopra, Sakshi
Gupta, Narendra Kumar
Tandan, Amrit
Dwivedi, Ravi
Gupta, Swati
Agarwal, Garima
author_sort Chopra, Sakshi
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Literature reveals that masticatory load on denture bearing tissues through complete dentures should be maximum on primary stress bearing areas and least on relief area in accordance with the histology of underlying tissues. A study to validate the existing beliefs was planned to compare the pressure on mucosa using selective pressure technique and minimal pressure technique, with the incorporation of two different impression materials utilizing the pressure sensors during secondary impression procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed using a maxillary analog. Three pressure sensors were imbedded in the oral analog, one in the mid palatine area and the other two in the right and left ridge crest. Custom trays of two different configurations were fabricated. The two impression materials tested were light body and zinc oxide eugenol. A total of 40 impressions were made. A constant weight of 1 kg was placed, and the pressure was recorded as initial and end pressures. RESULTS: A significant difference in the pressure produced using different impression materials was found (P < 0.001). Light body vinyl polysiloxane produced significantly lesser pressure than zinc oxide eugenol impression materials. The presence of relief did affect the magnitude of pressure at various locations. CONCLUSION: All impression materials produced pressure during maxillary edentulous impression making. Tray modification is an important factor in changing the amount of pressure produced. The impression materials used also had a significant role to play on the pressures acting on the tissues during impression procedure. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Light body VPS impression material may be recommended to achieve minimal pressure on the denture bearing tissues in both selective as well as minimal pressure techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4792057
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47920572016-04-01 Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study Chopra, Sakshi Gupta, Narendra Kumar Tandan, Amrit Dwivedi, Ravi Gupta, Swati Agarwal, Garima Contemp Clin Dent Original Article INTRODUCTION: Literature reveals that masticatory load on denture bearing tissues through complete dentures should be maximum on primary stress bearing areas and least on relief area in accordance with the histology of underlying tissues. A study to validate the existing beliefs was planned to compare the pressure on mucosa using selective pressure technique and minimal pressure technique, with the incorporation of two different impression materials utilizing the pressure sensors during secondary impression procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed using a maxillary analog. Three pressure sensors were imbedded in the oral analog, one in the mid palatine area and the other two in the right and left ridge crest. Custom trays of two different configurations were fabricated. The two impression materials tested were light body and zinc oxide eugenol. A total of 40 impressions were made. A constant weight of 1 kg was placed, and the pressure was recorded as initial and end pressures. RESULTS: A significant difference in the pressure produced using different impression materials was found (P < 0.001). Light body vinyl polysiloxane produced significantly lesser pressure than zinc oxide eugenol impression materials. The presence of relief did affect the magnitude of pressure at various locations. CONCLUSION: All impression materials produced pressure during maxillary edentulous impression making. Tray modification is an important factor in changing the amount of pressure produced. The impression materials used also had a significant role to play on the pressures acting on the tissues during impression procedure. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Light body VPS impression material may be recommended to achieve minimal pressure on the denture bearing tissues in both selective as well as minimal pressure techniques. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4792057/ /pubmed/27041902 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.177108 Text en Copyright: © Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Chopra, Sakshi
Gupta, Narendra Kumar
Tandan, Amrit
Dwivedi, Ravi
Gupta, Swati
Agarwal, Garima
Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: An in vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of pressure generated on a simulated maxillary oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different spacer designs: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27041902
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.177108
work_keys_str_mv AT choprasakshi comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy
AT guptanarendrakumar comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy
AT tandanamrit comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy
AT dwivediravi comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy
AT guptaswati comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy
AT agarwalgarima comparativeevaluationofpressuregeneratedonasimulatedmaxillaryoralanalogbyimpressionmaterialsincustomtraysofdifferentspacerdesignsaninvitrostudy