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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |