Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This pilot study analyzed impression procedures for conventional metal frame removable partial
dentures [RPDs). Heads of RPD departments of three dental laboratories were asked to record
features of all incoming impressions for RPDs during a 2-month period. Records included: (1J
impression procedure, tray type [stock/custom), impression material [elastomer/alginate), use of
border-molding material (yes/no); and [2] RPD type requested (distal-extension/tooth-bounded/
combination). Of the 132 total RPD impressions, 111 [84%) involved custom trays, of which
73 [55%) were combined with an elastomer. Impression border-molding material was used in
4% of the cases. Associations between impression procedure and RPD type or dentists' year/
university of graduation were not found. IntJ Prosthodont 2016;29:166-168. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4540
Results
166
Fokkinga et al
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Master Impressions for Metal Frame Removable Partial Dentures (RPDs) According
to RPD Type
Im pression tra y [n = 132)
Custom [n = 111)
RPD type
Elastom er
S tock [n = 21)
A lg in a te
Elastom er
A lginate
Total (n = 132)
D istal-extension
35
15
58
Tooth-bounded
20
37
C om bination
18
15
Total [n [% ])
73 [55)
Table 2
38 [29)
37
4 [3)
17(13)
132 (100)
Frequency Distribution of Master Impressions for Metal Frame Removable Partial Dentures [RPDs) According
to RPD Type and Jaw
M a ndible (n = 84)
C ustom [n = 67)
RPD type
M axilla (n = 48)
S tock (n = 17)
Custom (n = 44)
S tock (n = 4)
Elast
A lgin
Elast
28
12
58
Tooth-bounded
12
37
Com bination
Total (n [% ])
45 (34)
22 (17)
13 (9 )
28 (21)
16 (12)
Distal-extension
4 (3 )
A lgin
Elast
A lgin
Elast
A lgin
0
0 (0 )
Total (n = 132)
1
4 (3 )
37
132 (100)
Discussion
In th is p ilo t study, th e m ajority o f im pressions fo r RPDs
used custom trays, o f w h ich 2 o u t o f 3 w e re com bined
w ith elastom er im pression m aterial. S to ck trays w ere
used m ore fre q u e n tly in the m andible [20%) than in
the maxilla [8%). This was not expected, since fu n c
tional b o rd e r-m o ld in g in the m andible is considered
m ore relevant fo r d ista l-e xte n sio n RPDs and fo r co r
re ct location o f m ajor connectors.
It has been rep o rte d th a t metal p e rforated stock
167
Conclusion
The results of this pilot study indicate a variation in
impression procedures that cannot be explained by
the specific dental arch configurations and RPD type
requested. Associations between impression proce
dure and dentists year or university of graduation also
were not found.
168
References
1. Kilfeather GP, Lynch CD, Sloan AJ, Youngson CC. Quality of
communication and master impressions for the fabrication of
cobalt chromium removable partial dentures in general dental
practice in England, Ireland and Wales in 2009. J Oral Rehabil
2010;37:300-305.
2. Jepson NJ. Removable partial dentures. London: Quintessence,
2004:127-132.
3. Davenport JC, Basker RM, Heath JR, Ralph JP, Glantz PO. A
clinical guide to removable partial dentures. London: British
Dental Association, 2000:91-98.
4. Carr AB, McGivney GP, Brown DT. McCracken's Removable
Partial Prosthodontics. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Mosby,
2005:271-299.
5. Hochman N, Yaniv O. Comparative clinical evaluation of re
movable partial dentures made from impressions with different
materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998:19:200-206.