Comparative evaluation of border molding, using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches - An in vivo study.
Comparative evaluation of border molding, using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches - An in vivo study.
复制标题
在上颌无牙弓中使用两种不同技术的边界成型的比较评估 - 一项体内研究。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. A. Kumar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rameshbabu Yarapatineni;A. Vilekar;J. Kumar;G. Kumar;P. Aravind;P. A. Kumar
背景
本研究分三个阶段，即A、B、C、C三个阶段，比较了低粘结的Greentick树脂的分段边缘模塑和缩合硅胶(PuTTY)印模材料单步边缘模塑的固位力。
材料与方法
在这项研究中，评价了分段式边缘模塑(I组)(定制印模托盘边缘用绿棒化合物模塑)和单步边缘模塑(II组)(用缩合硅胶(TTTY)印模材料边缘模塑)的固位值。两种方法分别用轻体缩聚硅胶和热固化聚合树脂制作恒义齿基托，形成稳定的洗涤印模。
结果
在测试-A中，II组得分(平均值=8011.43)显著高于I组(平均值=5777.43)。T值为1.5883，提示I组与II组之间有显著差异(P=0.15)。在测试-B中，I组(平均值=6718.57)显著高于II组(平均值=5224.29)。T值为1.6909，提示I组与II组之间有显著差异(P=0.17)。在测试-C中，II组得分(平均值=4025.14)高于I组(平均值=3835.07)。T值为0.1239。但经统计学处理，差异无统计学意义(p=0.005)。
结论
在本临床研究范围内，采用低熔点绿棒化合物的边缘模塑定制托盘与使用缩合硅胶的定制印模托盘在恒牙基托中具有相似的固位力。如何引用本文：Yarapatineni R，Vilekar A，Kumar JP，Kumar GA，Aravind P，Kumar PA。两种不同技术在上颌无牙弓边缘造型中的比较评价：活体研究。国际口腔健康杂志2013；5(6)：82-7。
BACKGROUND
This study was undertaken to compare the retention between sectional border molding using low fusing greenstick compound and single step border molding using condensation silicone (putty) impression material in three stages- A. Immediately following border molding, B. After final impression and C. With the finished permanent denture base.
MATERIALS & METHODS
In this study evaluation of retentive values of sectional border molding (Group I) (custom impression trays border molded with green stick compound ) and single step border molding (Group II) ( border molding with condensation silicone (putty) impression material ). In both techniques definitive wash impression were made with light body condensation silicone and permanent denture base with heat cure polymerization resin.
RESULTS
Group II was significantly higher (mean=8011.43) than Group I (mean=5777.43) in test-A. The t-value (1.5883) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p =0.15). Group I was significantly higher (mean=6718.57) than Group II (mean=5224.29) in test -B. The t-value (1.6909) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p=0.17). Group II was higher (mean=4025.14) than Group I (mean=3835.07) in test -C. The t-value was 0.1239. But it was found to be statistically insignificant (p=0.005).
CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of this clinical study border molding custom tray with low fusing green stick compound provided similar retention as compared to custom impression tray with condensation silicone in permanent denture base. How to cite this article: Yarapatineni R, Vilekar A, Kumar JP, Kumar GA, Aravind P, Kumar PA. Comparative evaluation of border molding, using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches - An in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5(6):82-7 .