• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.325-335
• /
• 2008

The junction between resilient denture liner and the denture base is difficult to finish and polish due to difference of the physical property of the materials. Gaps tend to be formed during finishing and polishing procedures. The purpose of this study was measuring the width of junctional gap between $Molloplast-B^{(R)}$ and denture base material after finishing and polishing procedure, and evaluating the effect of method and direction on gap width. $Molloplast-B^{(R)}$ was processed (according to the manufacturer's instruction) against Lucitone $199^{(R)}$ acrylic resin. 50 specimens were fabricated with a raised center section. All of specimens were examined and photographed with a stereoscopic microscope(x120), and the largest gap along the junction of $Molloplast-B^{(R)}$ and acrylic resin on each specimen was measured. One-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) and independent t-test at 95% confidence level were used to analyze the data and to compare groups. The results of this study were as follows. In comparison with finishing tools, the gap width was the largest in $Molloplast^{(R)}$-Cutter and the smallest in FSQ-cross cut bur. There was statistically significant difference between FSQ-cross cut bur and $Molloplast^{(R)}$-Cutter(p<0.05). There was no significant difference in gap width between the direction of polishing. The mean value of gap width was the smallest in case of no polishing, and the largest in case of polishing with pumice & tin oxide. There was statistically significant difference between pumice and pumice & tin oxide. From the results, it is concluded that the use of $Molloplast^{(R)}$-Cutter in clinic need serious consideration even though it has good cutting ability. Further careful study is needed for finishing and polishing methods for decreasing gap width in junction of two materials.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.191-198
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the coronal bone level and patient satisfaction in 1-implant and 2-implant assisted mandibular overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients who had maladaptive mandibular dentures were treated in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received 1 implant (Simple line II, Implantium, South Korea) in their mandibular midline and the second group received 2 implants in their B and D regions (according to Misch's category). If the primary stability of each implant was at least 60 ISQ, ball attachment was placed and denture relined with soft liner. After 6 weeks, retentive cap incorporated with hard acrylic resin. In the 6 and 12 months recalls, periapical digital radiograph were made and visual analogue scale questionnaires were used to record patient satisfaction. The Friedman test was done for comparing the presurgical and postsurgical parameters in each group and the U-Mann Whitney test (P<.05) was done for comparison of post-treatment results between the two groups. RESULTS. All implants achieved sufficient primary stability to be immediately loaded. Patient satisfaction was high, and there were no significant differences between two groups (P>.05). In addition, mean marginal bone loss was $0.6{\pm}0.67$ mm in the first group and $0.6{\pm}0.51$ mm in the second group, after 12 month. Mean marginal bone loss showed no significant differences between two groups. CONCLUSION. This preliminary one-year result indicated that mandibular overdentures anchored to a single implant can be a safe and cost-effective method as a starting step for implant-overdenture treatment.