A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials

T. P. Hyde*, H. L. Craddock, J. C. Gray, S. H. Pavitt, C. Hulme, M. Godfrey, C. Fernandez, N. Navarro-Coy, S. Dillon, J. Wright, S. Brown, G. Dukanovic, P. A. Brunton

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.

Methods: Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.

Results: Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7-67.3%, p <0.0001).

Conclusion: There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.

Clinical significance: Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)895-901
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume42
Issue number8
Early online date1 Jul 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2014

Keywords

  • prosthodontics
  • quality-of life
  • patient outcomes
  • impression materials
  • edentulous
  • removable prosthodontics
  • clinical-trial
  • fabrication
  • quality
  • overdentures
  • satisfaction

Cite this

Hyde, T. P., Craddock, H. L., Gray, J. C., Pavitt, S. H., Hulme, C., Godfrey, M., ... Brunton, P. A. (2014). A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials. Journal of Dentistry, 42(8), 895-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005

A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials. / Hyde, T. P.; Craddock, H. L.; Gray, J. C.; Pavitt, S. H.; Hulme, C.; Godfrey, M.; Fernandez, C.; Navarro-Coy, N.; Dillon, S.; Wright, J.; Brown, S.; Dukanovic, G.; Brunton, P. A.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 42, No. 8, 08.2014, p. 895-901.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hyde, TP, Craddock, HL, Gray, JC, Pavitt, SH, Hulme, C, Godfrey, M, Fernandez, C, Navarro-Coy, N, Dillon, S, Wright, J, Brown, S, Dukanovic, G & Brunton, PA 2014, 'A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials', Journal of Dentistry, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 895-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005
Hyde TP, Craddock HL, Gray JC, Pavitt SH, Hulme C, Godfrey M et al. A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials. Journal of Dentistry. 2014 Aug;42(8):895-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005
Hyde, T. P. ; Craddock, H. L. ; Gray, J. C. ; Pavitt, S. H. ; Hulme, C. ; Godfrey, M. ; Fernandez, C. ; Navarro-Coy, N. ; Dillon, S. ; Wright, J. ; Brown, S. ; Dukanovic, G. ; Brunton, P. A. / A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2014 ; Vol. 42, No. 8. pp. 895-901.
@article{ca70220eaaac4c98ad3c342617b8382e,
title = "A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials",
abstract = "Objectives: There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.Methods: Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.Results: Seventy-eight (91.8{\%}) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9{\%}) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9{\%}) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1{\%}) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0{\%}) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50{\%} difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95{\%}CI 32.7-67.3{\%}, p <0.0001).Conclusion: There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.Clinical significance: Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.",
keywords = "prosthodontics, quality-of life, patient outcomes, impression materials, edentulous, removable prosthodontics, clinical-trial, fabrication, quality, overdentures, satisfaction",
author = "Hyde, {T. P.} and Craddock, {H. L.} and Gray, {J. C.} and Pavitt, {S. H.} and C. Hulme and M. Godfrey and C. Fernandez and N. Navarro-Coy and S. Dillon and J. Wright and S. Brown and G. Dukanovic and Brunton, {P. A.}",
note = "Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Under a Creative Commons license This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16300). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK). Funded by NIHR-RfPB grant number PB-PG-0408-16300.",
year = "2014",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "895--901",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials

AU - Hyde, T. P.

AU - Craddock, H. L.

AU - Gray, J. C.

AU - Pavitt, S. H.

AU - Hulme, C.

AU - Godfrey, M.

AU - Fernandez, C.

AU - Navarro-Coy, N.

AU - Dillon, S.

AU - Wright, J.

AU - Brown, S.

AU - Dukanovic, G.

AU - Brunton, P. A.

N1 - Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Under a Creative Commons license This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16300). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health (UK). Funded by NIHR-RfPB grant number PB-PG-0408-16300.

PY - 2014/8

Y1 - 2014/8

N2 - Objectives: There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.Methods: Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.Results: Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7-67.3%, p <0.0001).Conclusion: There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.Clinical significance: Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

AB - Objectives: There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial.Methods: Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire.Results: Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7-67.3%, p <0.0001).Conclusion: There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients.Clinical significance: Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

KW - prosthodontics

KW - quality-of life

KW - patient outcomes

KW - impression materials

KW - edentulous

KW - removable prosthodontics

KW - clinical-trial

KW - fabrication

KW - quality

KW - overdentures

KW - satisfaction

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.005

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 895

EP - 901

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - 8

ER -