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.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Journal of Dentistry|
|Early online date||1 Jul 2014|
|Publication status||Published - Aug 2014|
- quality-of life
- patient outcomes
- impression materials
- removable prosthodontics