Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study

Purpose: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. Materials and M...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anchal Qanungo, Meena Ajay Aras, Vidya Chitre, Ivy Coutinho, Praveen Rajagopal, Ashwin Mysore
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2016-01-01
Series:The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.j-ips.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4052;year=2016;volume=16;issue=4;spage=340;epage=345;aulast=Qanungo
id doaj-b633fe3da1f74512b0b5382ec0a0d6a6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b633fe3da1f74512b0b5382ec0a0d6a62020-11-24T22:59:02ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsThe Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society0972-40521998-40572016-01-0116434034510.4103/0972-4052.191291Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical studyAnchal QanungoMeena Ajay ArasVidya ChitreIvy CoutinhoPraveen RajagopalAshwin MysorePurpose: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. Materials and Methods: Ten completely edentulous patients in need of prostheses were included in this study. Two border molding techniques, single-step (Group 1) and sectional (Group 2), were compared for retention. Both border molding techniques were performed in each patient. In both techniques, definitive wash impression was made with light viscosity addition silicone. The final results were analyzed using paired t-test to determine whether significant differences existed between the groups. Results: The t-value (3.031) infers that there was a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.014). The retention obtained in Group 2 (mean = 9.05 kgf) was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (mean = 8.26 kgf). Conclusion: Sectional border molding technique proved to be more retentive as compared to single-step border molding although clinically the retention appeared comparable.http://www.j-ips.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4052;year=2016;volume=16;issue=4;spage=340;epage=345;aulast=QanungoHeavy viscosity addition siliconelow fusing impression compoundretentionsectional border moldingsingle-step border molding
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Anchal Qanungo
Meena Ajay Aras
Vidya Chitre
Ivy Coutinho
Praveen Rajagopal
Ashwin Mysore
spellingShingle Anchal Qanungo
Meena Ajay Aras
Vidya Chitre
Ivy Coutinho
Praveen Rajagopal
Ashwin Mysore
Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Heavy viscosity addition silicone
low fusing impression compound
retention
sectional border molding
single-step border molding
author_facet Anchal Qanungo
Meena Ajay Aras
Vidya Chitre
Ivy Coutinho
Praveen Rajagopal
Ashwin Mysore
author_sort Anchal Qanungo
title Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_short Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_full Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: A clinical study
title_sort comparative evaluation of border molding using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches: a clinical study
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
issn 0972-4052
1998-4057
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Purpose: The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the single-step border molding technique using injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone with sectional border molding technique using low fusing impression compound by evaluating the retention of heat cure trial denture bases. Materials and Methods: Ten completely edentulous patients in need of prostheses were included in this study. Two border molding techniques, single-step (Group 1) and sectional (Group 2), were compared for retention. Both border molding techniques were performed in each patient. In both techniques, definitive wash impression was made with light viscosity addition silicone. The final results were analyzed using paired t-test to determine whether significant differences existed between the groups. Results: The t-value (3.031) infers that there was a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.014). The retention obtained in Group 2 (mean = 9.05 kgf) was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (mean = 8.26 kgf). Conclusion: Sectional border molding technique proved to be more retentive as compared to single-step border molding although clinically the retention appeared comparable.
topic Heavy viscosity addition silicone
low fusing impression compound
retention
sectional border molding
single-step border molding
url http://www.j-ips.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4052;year=2016;volume=16;issue=4;spage=340;epage=345;aulast=Qanungo
work_keys_str_mv AT anchalqanungo comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT meenaajayaras comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT vidyachitre comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT ivycoutinho comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT praveenrajagopal comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
AT ashwinmysore comparativeevaluationofbordermoldingusingtwodifferenttechniquesinmaxillaryedentulousarchesaclinicalstudy
_version_ 1725645826920808448