Diş hekimlerinin total protezlerde kullandıkları ölçü yöntem ve tekniklerinin analizi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı diş hekimlerinin tam protez yapımında kullandıkları anatomik ve fonksiyonel ölçü tekniklerinin analiz edilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 35 sorudan oluşan bir anket çeşitli kurumlarda çalışan 169 diş hekimine uygulandı. Anket 3 bölümden oluşmaktaydı; ilk bölüm kişisel bilgiler, ikinci bölüm tam protezlerin anatomik ölçü işlemleri ve üçüncü bölüm tam protezlerin fonksiyonel ölçü işlemleri ile ölçü hazırlığı esnasındaki aşamalara yönelik sorulardan oluşmaktadır. Verilerin istatistiksel analizinde çapraz tablolar, deskriptif ve frekans analizleri kullanıldı. Bulgular: Herbir soruya ait cevapların deskriptif ve frekans analizleri sonucunda verilerin dağılımı soru gruplarına göre oluşturuldu. Analizler sonucunda tam protez yapan hekimlerin ilk ölçü için % 98.2 oranında irreversible hidrokolloid ölçü maddesi, ikinci ölçü için % 62 oranında çinko oksit öjenol ölçü maddesi kullandığı tespit edildi. Hekimlerin % 38.4 oranında mukostatik ölçü tekniğini, % 30.8 oranında mukokompresif ölçü tekniğini ve % 30.8 oranında ise mukoselektif ölçü tekniğini benimsediği bulundu. Hekimlerin % 74’ü gibi büyük bir çoğunluğu özel kaşık kenarlarını şekillendirdiğini ve bunu da ağırlıklı olarak (% 69.2) stenç kullanarak yaptıklarını ifade etmiştir. Çalışmamıza dahil olan hekimlerin % 53.3’ü son ölçüler alınmadan önce en az 24 saat boyunca hastalara mevcut protezlerini kullandırmamaktadır. Sonuç: Hekimlerin büyük çoğunluğu tam protez yaparken geleneksel ölçü yöntem ve tekniklerini kullanırken, alternatif materyal ve yöntem uygulayan hekimler de bulunmaktadır.

Analysis of impression methods and techniques used by dentists in total prosthesis

Background: The aim of this study is to analyze the anatomical and functional impression techniques used by dentists in making complete dentures. Methods: A survey consisting of 35 questions was applied to 169 dentists working in various institutions. The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts; the first part consists of personal information, the second part is the anatomical impression procedures of the complete dentures and the third part consists of the questions about the functional impression processes of the complete dentures and the stages during the preparation of the impression. Descriptive, frequency analysis and crosstabs were used in the statistical analysis of the data. Results: As a result of descriptive and frequency analyzes of the answers of each question, the distribution of the data was formed according to the question groups.It was found that dentists used 98.9% irreversible hydrocolloid for the first impression, 62% zinc oxide eugenol for the second impression. It was found that dentists adopted mucostatic impression (38.4 %), mucocompressive impression (30.8 %), and mucoselective (30.8 %) impression technique. The majority of dentists (74.2 %) maked border molding and used generally impression compound (69.2 %). 53.3% of the dentists involved in our study tell their patients not to use their existing prostheses for at least 24 hours before the final impressions are taken. Conclusion: While the majority of dentist use traditional impression methods and techniques while performing a complete denture, there are also dentist who apply alternative materials and methods.

PDF

___

1. Allen PF, McMillan AS. A longitudinal study of quality of life outcomes in older adults requesting implant prostheses and complete removable dentures. Clin Oral Implant Res 2003; 14: 173-9.
2. Devan MM. Basic principles in impression making. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93: 503-8.
3. Boucher CO, Hickey JC, G.A. Z. Boucher’s Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients, 11th ed. Missouri, USA: Mosby. 1997; p. 45-7.
4. Carlsson GE, Ortorp A, Omar R. What is the evidence base for the efficacies of different complete denture impression procedures? A critical review. J Dent 2013; 41: 17-23.
5. Winkler S. Essentials of Complete Denture Prosthodontics. 2th ed. Mosby Year Book Inc. USA: 1988; p.44.
6. Davis DM. Developing an analogue for the maxillary denture-bearing area. In: Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Carlsson GE (eds): Boucher’s Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients (ed 11). St. Louis, MO, Mosby. 1997; p. 141-61.
7. Smutko GE. Making edentulous impressions. In: Winkler S (ed): Essentials of Complete Denture Prosthodontics (ed 2). Littleton, MA, PSG Publishing Company. 1988; p. 88-102.
8. Smith DE, Toolson LB, Bolender CL, Lord JL. One-step border molding of complete denture impressions using a polyether impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 41: 347-51.
9. Felton DA, Cooper LF, Scurria MS. Predictable impression procedures for complete dentures. Dent Clin N Am 1996; 40: 39-51.
10. Chaffee NR, Cooper LF, Felton DA. A technique for border molding edentulous impressions using vinyl polysiloxane material. J Prosthodont 1999; 8: 129-34.
11. Loh PL. An alternative for making master impressions for complete dentures. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1436-7.
12. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 728-32.
13. Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 1998; 43: 428-34.
14. Fenn HRB, MacGregor aR. Clinical Dental Prosthetics, 3rd edn. London: Wright; 1989.
15. Grant AA, Heath JR, McCord JF. Complete Prosthodontics, Problems Diagnosis and Management. London: Wolfe; 1994.
16. Millstein P, Maya A, Segura C. Determining the accuracy of stock and custom tray impression/casts. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 645-8.
17. Paul R, Dey N, Konar M, Bhattacharyya J, Ghosh S.. Complete Denture Impression Procedures and Techniques Practised by Dental Surgeons of a Dental College in Eastern Part of India: A Short Survey. Glob J Med Res [S.l.], mar. 2019.
18. Altunkara Ş, Türker BŞ. Serbest çalışan diş hekimlerinin total protez yapımı sırasında kullandıkları tekniklerin ve materyallerin araştırılması. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2016; 3: 448-56.
19. Petrie CS, Walker MP, Williams K. A survey of U.S. prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2005; 14: 253-62.
20. Al-Ahmar AO, Lynch CD, Locke M, Youngson CC. Quality of master impressions and related materials for fabrication of complete dentures in the UK. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35: 111-5.
21. Kakatkar VR. Complete denture impression techniques practiced by private dental practitioners: a survey. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13: 233-5.
22. Hyde TP, McCord JF. Survey of prosthodontic impression procedures for complete dentures in general dental practice in the United Kingdom. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 295-9.
23. Singh G KV, Gambhir RS, Bansal V. Application of prosthodontic techniques by private practitioners in Northern India—a survey. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 2: 116-21.
24. Çalıkkocaoğlu PDS. Tam Protezlerin Yapımı. Dişsiz Hastaların Protetik Tedavisi: Klasik Tam Protezler. İstanbul: Quintessence Yayıncılık. Bölüm 7. 2013.
25. Kesling CK. Impression tray for retention of impression material. United States Patent (4,907,966). Mar. 13, 1990.
26. Shen C. Impression Materials. In: Anusavice KJ (ed): Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials (ed 11). Philadelphia, PA, Saunders. 2003; p. 210-30.
27. Shillingburg HT, Jr., Hatch RA, Keenan MP, Hemphill MW. Impression materials and techniques used for cast restorations in eight states. J Am Dent Assoc 1980; 100: 696-9.
28. Çelik E, Tekmen Ç. Diş Protez Laboratuvar Malzemeleri. DEÜ Müh Fak Fen ve Müh Derg. 2004; 2: 81-93.
29. American National Standards/American Dental Association, Specification 25 for dental gypsum products. New York: American National Standards Institute; 2000; p. 244-53.
30. Mahler DB, Ady AB. An explanation for the hygroscopic setting expansion of dental gypsum products. J Dent Res 1960; 39: 578-89.
31. 31. Fernandes VA, Chitre V, Aras M. A study to determine whether the anterior and posterior vibrating lines can be distinguished as two separate lines of flexion by unbiased observers: a pilot study. Ind J Dent Res 2008; 19: 335-9.