J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2024 Nov;40(4):268-278. 10.14368/jdras.2024.40.4.268.

Comparison of denture supporting area and retention between different mandibular denture impression techniques in a fully edentulous patient with severe alveolar bone resorption: a case report

• Yoo Sw
• Kim JJ
• Baik J
• Cha HS
• Lee JH

• KMID: 2562771
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2024.40.4.268

Abstract

In fully edentulous patients with severe mandibular alveolar bone resorption, the retention and stability of a mandibular complete denture may be limited. There are two primary impression techniques for complete denture fabrication: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique. These two methods differ in how they achieve retention and stability, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The study aims to compare the difference in supporting area, retention, and patient satisfaction between mandibular complete dentures fabricated using two impression techniques: the open-mouth impres-sion technique and the closed-mouth impression technique.

Keyword

complete denture; suction denture; open-mouth impression; closed-mouth impression; retention

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Extraoral photograph before treatment. (A) Frontal view, (B) Right side view.

• 

  Fig. 2 Intraoral photograph before treatment. (A) Upper view, (B) Right side view, (C) Frontal view, (D) Left side view, (E) Lower view.

• 

  Fig. 3 Panoramic radiograph before treatment.

• 

  Fig. 4 Border molding, final impression and Definitive cast. (A) Border molding on upper indivisual tray, (B) Border molding on lower indivisual tray, (C) Upper final impression body, (D) Lower final impression body, (E) Upper definitive cast, (F) Lower definitive cast.

• 

  Fig. 5 Mandibular preliminary impression. (A) Frame cut back tray, (B) Mandibular alginate impression.

• 

  Fig. 6 Individual tray for closedmouth impression. (A), (B) Individual tray with waxrim.

• 

  Fig. 7 Closed-mouth impression technique. (A) Centric relation bite, (B) 1st impression, (C, D) 2nd impression.

• 

  Fig. 8 Articulator mounting. (A) Open-mouth impression technique, (B) Closed-mouth impression technique.

• 

  Fig. 9 Artificial teeth arrangement. (A) Maxillary complete denture, (B-1, B-2) Open-mouth impression technique, (C-1, C-2) Closed-mouth impression technique.

• 

  Fig. 10 Clinical remounting. (A) Definitive denture (Open-mouth impression technique), (B) Definitive denture (Closedmouth impression technique).

• 

  Fig. 11 Definitive denture delivery. (A) Definitive denture (Open-mouth impression technique), (B) Definitive denture (Closed-mouth impression technique).

• 

  Fig. 12 Comparison of retention using balance weight. (A) Definitive denture (Open-mouth impression technique), (B) Definitive denture (Closed-mouth impression technique), (C) Balance weight.

• 

  Fig. 13 The questionnaire filled in by the patient: 8 questions to assess the patient's satisfaction with the two lower dentures, with a score between 0 and 10.

• 

  Fig. 14 Definitive impression model scan. (A) Definitive model (Open-mouth impression technique) scan, (B) Definitive model (Closed-mouth impression technique) scan, (C) Overlap of (A) and (B).

• 

  Fig. 15 Tissue surface of definitive dentures fabricated by two impression techniques (A) Definitive denture (Open-mouth impression technique), (B) Definitive denture (Closed-mouth impression technique).

• 

  Fig. 16 Flange extension of definitive dentures fabricated by two impression techniques (A, C) Definitive denture (Open-mouth impression technique), (B, D) Definitive denture (Closed-mouth impression technique).

• 

  Fig. 17 Comparison of definitive model fabricated by two impression techniques (A) Approximation, (B) Ridge area selection for alignment, (C) Alignment, (D) Max. deviation: 0.8 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.37 mm (Left to Right).

Reference

References

1. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Fenton AH, Jacob RF, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: Complete dentures and implant-supported prestheses. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;2004. p. 24–33. p. 73–99.

2. Collett HA. 1970; Final impressions for complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 23:250–64. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90180-0. PMID: 4905179.

3. Abe J, Kokubo K, Sato K. Mandibular Suction-effective denture and BPS: A complete guide. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Co. Ltd.;2012. p. 46–78.

4. Cho IH, Kwon KR, Kwon HB, Kim MH, Lee CH, Jeong CM, Park CJ, Park SW, Lee JH, Cho HW, Kim HJ, Moon HS, Chung MK, Chung CH, Lim YJ, Lee JS, Song KW, Han CH. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 2nd ed. Seoul: Dental Wisdom;2014. p. 98–145.

5. Sato K. What is Suction Denture? Tokyo: Dental Diamond Co.;2014. p. 32–57.

6. Jassim TK, Kareem AE, Alloaibi MA. 2020; In vivo evaluation of the impact of various border molding materials and techniques on the retention of complete maxillary denture. Dent Med Probl. 57:191–6. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/115104. PMID: 32649808.

7. Epifania E, Sanzullo R, Sorrentino R, Ausiello P. 2018; Evaluation of Satisfaction Perceived by Prosthetic Patients Compared to Clinical and Technical Variables. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 8:252–8. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_27_18. PMID: 29911064. PMCID: PMC5985683.

8. Abe J. 2010; Difference of preliminary impression takings between conventional mandibular complete denture and the mandibular complete denture intended with effective suction. Pract Prosthodont. 43:510–24.

9. Tallgren A. 1972; The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 27:120–32. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(72)90188-6. PMID: 4500507.