Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. MATERIALS AND M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qanungo, Anchal, Aras, Meena Ajay, Chitre, Vidya, Coutinho, Ivy, Rajagopal, Praveen, Mysore, Ashwin
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/PMC5062136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746597
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.191291
_version_ 1782459716919623680
author Qanungo, Anchal
Aras, Meena Ajay
Chitre, Vidya
Coutinho, Ivy
Rajagopal, Praveen
Mysore, Ashwin
author_facet Qanungo, Anchal
Aras, Meena Ajay
Chitre, Vidya
Coutinho, Ivy
Rajagopal, Praveen
Mysore, Ashwin
author_sort Qanungo, Anchal
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten completely edentulous patients in need of prostheses were included in this study. Two border molding techniques, single-step (Group 1) and sectional (Group 2), were compared for retention. Both border molding techniques were performed in each patient. In both techniques, definitive wash impression was made with light viscosity addition silicone. The final results were analyzed using paired t-test to determine whether significant differences existed between the groups. RESULTS: The t-value (3.031) infers that there was a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.014). The retention obtained in Group 2 (mean = 9.05 kgf) was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (mean = 8.26 kgf). CONCLUSION: Sectional border molding technique proved to be more retentive as compared to single-step border molding although clinically the retention appeared comparable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5062136
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50621362017-10-01 Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study Qanungo, Anchal Aras, Meena Ajay Chitre, Vidya Coutinho, Ivy Rajagopal, Praveen Mysore, Ashwin J Indian Prosthodont Soc Original Article PURPOSE: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten completely edentulous patients in need of prostheses were included in this study. Two border molding techniques, single-step (Group 1) and sectional (Group 2), were compared for retention. Both border molding techniques were performed in each patient. In both techniques, definitive wash impression was made with light viscosity addition silicone. The final results were analyzed using paired t-test to determine whether significant differences existed between the groups. RESULTS: The t-value (3.031) infers that there was a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.014). The retention obtained in Group 2 (mean = 9.05 kgf) was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (mean = 8.26 kgf). CONCLUSION: Sectional border molding technique proved to be more retentive as compared to single-step border molding although clinically the retention appeared comparable. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5062136/ /pubmed/27746597 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.191291 Text en Copyright: © 2016 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 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
Qanungo, Anchal
Aras, Meena Ajay
Chitre, Vidya
Coutinho, Ivy
Rajagopal, Praveen
Mysore, Ashwin
Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_full Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_short Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_sort comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: a clinical study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5062136/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746597
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.191291
work_keys_str_mv AT qanungoanchal comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT arasmeenaajay comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT chitrevidya comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT coutinhoivy comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT rajagopalpraveen comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT mysoreashwin comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy