Roodabeh Koodaryan¹ and  Ali Hafezeqoran²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. ²Associate Professor, Department of prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. Corresponding Authors Email: Hafezeqoran@gmail.com

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/945

Abstract

Background and objectives: Although material choice usually relies on personal preference and experience, but following the predefined steps during complete denture constructions guarantee a successful treatment. This study aimed to identify the attitude of dental practitioners towards complete denture impression procedures. Methods: 200 questionnaires were distributed among general practitioners in Tabriz, Iran. The structured questionnaire consisted of 8 multiple-choice questions on the preferred impression material for primary and final impressions, types of impression tray, and impression technique. Data were analyzed by using frequency distribution. Results: 73.8% of respondents used alginate for making primary impression and only 3.8% preferred impression compound.75.1% favored the use of custom impression trays and 69.9%border molded the tray with green stick compound. Polyvinylsiloxane,zinc oxide eugenol, and alginate were selected as final impression materials in respectively 45.6%, 32.9%, and 13.2% of responses and the most common impression technique was selective pressure. Conclusion: Most practitioners followed the traditional techniques of complete dentureimpression procedures; however, an increase in the preference for polyvinylsiloxane impression materialswas seen.

Keywords

Custom tray; Impression technique; Impression Material

Download this article as: 

Copy the following to cite this article: Koodaryan R, Hafezeqoran A. Attitude of Dental Practitioners Towards Complete Denture Impression Procedures. Biomed Pharmacol J 2016;9(1)

Copy the following to cite this URL: Koodaryan R, Hafezeqoran A. Attitude of Dental Practitioners Towards Complete Denture Impression Procedures. Biomed Pharmacol J 2016;9(1). Available from: http://biomedpharmajournal.org/?p=6776

Introduction

Proper impression procedure is essential to obtain good retention and peripheral seal andprovides support and stability for complete denture(1,2).Ideally, the established borders of final impression should be similar in thickness and length to denture flanges(1,3,4).Followingthepredefined sequential steps ensures a successful complete denture(3,5,6). These include primary impression, custom tray construction, border molding, and final impressing.Methods of Impression making have evolved with the introduction of new material and techniques; currently awide range of materialsand techniques are available for various clinical situations whichmandate the complete understanding of impression concepts and principles.Despite the advances, material choice usually relies on personal preference and experience(7). The current study aimed to identify the attitude of dental practitioners towards complete denture impression making.

Methods

The structured questionnaire was designed to collect the data. The initial draft of the questionnaire was created using previous studies and refined with the aid of experts and practitioners. Final questionnaire included 8 multiple-choice questions about the primary and final impression procedures. The first part of the questionnaire considered the general items such as demographic information, types of practice, and years of experience. The second part consisted of 8 multiple-choice questions on the preferred impression material for primary and final impressions, types of impression tray, and impression technique.Questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of 200 general practitioners in Tabriz, Iran. Descriptive analyses were conducted to analyze all items on questionnaire using SPSS statistics software.

Results

A total of 173 questionnaires were collected and the overall response rate was 86.5%. Regarding the primary impression procedures, 62.3% preferred plastic edentulous stock trays while 28.4 % used metal edentulous stock trays. Alginate was the most common material used for making primary impression (73.8%) and only 3.8% of practitioners indicated using impression compound (Table1).

Table 1: Participants responses regarding complete denture impression procedures

No	Question	choices	N (%)
1	Do you make primary impressions? If no, proceed to Q4.	Yes	130(75.1)
		No	43(21.5)
2	What type of tray is used for making primary impression?	Stock plastic	9(6.9)
		Stock plastic edentulous	81(62.3)
		Stock metal	3(2.3)
		Stock metal edentulous	37(28.4)
3	Which material do you use to make primary impressions?	Impression  compound	5(3.8)
		Alginate	96(73.8)
		Others ( please specify)	29(22.3)
4	Which type of tray do you use for final impression?	Stock plastic edentulous	28(16.1)
		Stock metal edentulous	15(7.5)
		Custom	130(75.1)
5	Which material do you use for custom tray fabrication?	Autopolymerizing  resin	64(49.2)
		Light cure resin	43(33.10
		Base plate	23(17.6)
6	Which material do you use to carry out border molding?	Green sticks	121(69.9)
		others	52(30.1)
7	Which material do you use for final impression?	Alginate	23(13.2)
		Zinc oxide eugenol	57(32.9)
		Polyvinylsiloxane	79(45.6)
		Polysulfide	2(1.1)
		polyether	12(6.9)
8	Which technique do you use for final impression?	Functional	47(27.1)
		Mucostatic	34(19.6)
		Selective pressure	67(38.7)
		Not known	25(14.4)

Regarding the final impression procedures, the great majority (75.1%) of the respondents favored the use of custom impression trays and autopolymerizing resin was the preferred material (49.2%). Most of the respondents (69.9%) border molded the tray with green stick compounds; other materials such as wax, polyether, and polyvinylsiloxane were mentioned in 30.1%.Based on theresponses,45.6% of final impression materials were polyvinylsiloxane, 32.9% zinc oxide eugenol, 13.2% alginate and 6.9% polyether. The most common impression technique was selective pressure (38.7%) followed by functional method (27.1%) and only 19.6% employed mucostatic philosophy.

Discussion

The impression procedure of complete denture is a critical step which customizes the prosthesis to the optimal denture-supporting area and ensures a peripheral seal. Preliminary impression is made with various impression materials from modeling compound to alginate in a stock metal tray. Currently, there has been an increase in the use ofhigh viscosity irreversible hydrocolloid as a primary impression material due to its availability and working properties(8–13). Thecurrent study showed that the majority of practitioners preferred alginate for making primary impression while a much smaller percentage of them used impression compound.Previous studies in UK, India, and America revealed the similar tendency amongclinicians to employ alginate impression materials.

Green stickcompound is commonly utilized in predoctoral training programs.95% of US dental schools and 81% of North American dental students used green stick modeling compound(13,10).Other materials such as elastomeric impression materials are gaining popularity as alternative border molding materials(12).Although these materialsmake it possible to record all the borders simultaneously in a single stage, but modeling compound still constitute the major preference of most clinicians. In the current study the most reported border molding material was green stick modeling compound. Similarly, 67% of the American college of prosthodontists members border molded the custom tray with  modeling plastic (13).

Polyvinyl siloxane impression material was the most preferred material of the participants. This is in accordance with the most recent surveys.Conversely, a survey in UK showed the preference of practitioners towards alginate impression materials followed by ZOE paste (14). Polysulfide was preferred in other surveys conducted in north American dental school and UK(10,9) and polyether in US dental schools (13).Although the studies regarding the materials for final impression procedures are heterogeneous, previous studies in the literatures indicated that the tendency is shifted towards the elastomeric impression materials. Long term dimensional stability, proper working, and significant improvement in their properties are the reason of the recent increase.

Consistent with the previous surveys(13,15,16,3,11), selective pressure philosophy was the most common employed technique among the participants. The theory is based on the anatomical differences and load bearing capabilities of the edentulous arches(1,5,17). Certain areas of the denture bearing area cannot tolerate the forces and require relief while forces are predominately applied to primary stress bearing area(1).

Conclusion

This study explained the current trends of general practitioners regarding impression procedures in complete dentures. Majority of the participants made use of green stick modeling compounds for border molding custom impression trays. Moreover, the most common primary and final impression materials were alginate and polyvinylsiloxane respectively.

References

1. Carlsson G. Facts and fallacies: an evidence base for complete dentures. Dent Updat [Internet]. 2006;33(3):134–42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16700269
2. Hyde TP, Craddock HL, Gray JC, Pavitt SH, Hulme C, Godfrey M, et al. A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials. J Dent [Internet]. 2014;42(8):895–901. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571214000530
3. Petropoulos VC, Rashedi B. Current concepts and techniques in complete denture final impression procedures. J Prosthodont. 2003;12(4):280–7.
4. Chaffee NR, Cooper LF F DA. A technique for border molding edentulous impressions using vinyl polysiloxane material. J Prosthodont. 1999;8(129-134).
5. Kawai Y, Murakami H, Shariati B, Klemetti E, Blomfield J V., Billette L, et al. Do traditional techniques produce better conventional complete dentures than simplified techniques? J Dent. 2005;33(8):659–68.
6. Hyde TP, Craddock HL, Blance A, Brunton PA. A cross-over Randomised Controlled Trial of selective pressure impressions for lower complete dentures. J Dent. 2010;38(11):853–8.
7. Vohra F, Rashid H, Hanif A, Mariam S, Ghani A, Najeeb S. Trends in Complete Denture Impressions in Pakistan. J Ayub Med Coll. 2015;27(1).
8. Al-Ahmar AO, Lynch CD, Locke M, Youngson CC. Quality of master impressions and related materials for fabrication of complete dentures in the UK. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(2):111–5.
9. Hyde TP, McCord JF. Survey of prosthodontic impression procedures for complete dentures in general dental practice in the United Kingdom. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(3):295–9.
10. Arbree NS, Fleck S, Askinas SW. The results of a brief survey of complete denture prosthodontic techniques in predoctoral programs in North American dental schools. J Prosthodont. 1996;5(3):219–25.
11. Kakatkar VR. Complete denture impression techniques practiced by private dental practitioners: A survey. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013;13(3):233–5.
12. Montero J, Castillo-de Oyague R, Albaladejo A. Curricula for the teaching of complete dentures in spanish and portuguese dental schools. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18(1).
13. Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K. A survey of U.S. prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. J Prosthodont. 2005;14(4):253–62.
14. Gauthier G, Williams JE, Zwemer JD. The practice of complete denture prosthodontics by selected dental graduates. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(2):308–13.
15. Hanif A, Khan J BM. Impression Techniques And Materials Used For Fabrication Of Complete Denture. A Survey. Pak Oral Dent J. 2014;34(1):170–3.
16. Ozkurt Z, Dikbas I, Kazazoglu E. Predoctoral Prosthodontic Clinical Curriculum for Complete Dentures: Survey in Turkish Dental Schools. J Dent Educ [Internet]. 2013;77(1):93–8. Available from: http://www.jdentaled.org/content/77/1/93.short
17. Carlsson GE, Örtorp A, Omar R. What is the evidence base for the efficacies of different complete denture impression procedures? A critical review. J Dent. 2013;41(1):17–23.