Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 1070  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 55-60

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


Department of Prosthodontics, BBDCODS, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Sakshi Chopra
55, Ravindra Palli, Faizabad Road, Lucknow - 226 016, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.177108

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2412    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded306    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal