We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Fit of Partial Removable Dental Prostheses Based on Alginate or Polyvinyl Siloxane Impressions.
International Journal of Prosthodontics 2017 January
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical fit of metal-frame partial removable dental prostheses (PRDPs) based on custom trays used with alginate or polyvinyl siloxane impression material.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifth-year students of the Nijmegen Dental School made 25 correct impressions for 23 PRDPs for 21 patients using alginate, and 31 correct impressions for 30 PRDPs for 28 patients using polyvinyl siloxane. Clinical fit of the framework as a whole and of each retainer separately were evaluated by calibrated supervisors during framework try-in before (first evaluation) and after (second evaluation) possible adjustments (score 0 = poor fit, up to score 3 = good fit). Framework fit and fit of the denture base were evaluated at delivery (third evaluation). Finally, postinsertion sessions were evaluated and total number of sessions needed, sore spots, adjustments to the denture base, and reported food-impaction were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical fit (of the framework as a whole, for the retainers, or for the denture base) were found between the groups in the three evaluation sessions. Differences were not found for postinsertion sessions with one exception: in the alginate group, four subjects reported food impaction, versus none in the polyvinyl siloxane group.
CONCLUSION: Clinical fit of metal-frame PRDPs based on impressions with custom trays combined with alginate or polyvinyl siloxane was similar.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifth-year students of the Nijmegen Dental School made 25 correct impressions for 23 PRDPs for 21 patients using alginate, and 31 correct impressions for 30 PRDPs for 28 patients using polyvinyl siloxane. Clinical fit of the framework as a whole and of each retainer separately were evaluated by calibrated supervisors during framework try-in before (first evaluation) and after (second evaluation) possible adjustments (score 0 = poor fit, up to score 3 = good fit). Framework fit and fit of the denture base were evaluated at delivery (third evaluation). Finally, postinsertion sessions were evaluated and total number of sessions needed, sore spots, adjustments to the denture base, and reported food-impaction were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical fit (of the framework as a whole, for the retainers, or for the denture base) were found between the groups in the three evaluation sessions. Differences were not found for postinsertion sessions with one exception: in the alginate group, four subjects reported food impaction, versus none in the polyvinyl siloxane group.
CONCLUSION: Clinical fit of metal-frame PRDPs based on impressions with custom trays combined with alginate or polyvinyl siloxane was similar.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app