Tp Hyde

A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials

Objectives There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial. Methods Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire. Results Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7–67.3%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients. Clinical significance Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. Trial Registration: ISRCTN 01528038.

 This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Postoperative Sensitivity with Warm and Room Temperature Composite

Physical properties of composite improve when it is preheated prior to polymerization. However, postoperative sensitivity may be considered a potential complication. A review of the literature revealed no reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of postoperative sensitivity when using preheated composite resin. The objective of the study was to determine if preheating composite leads to changes in postoperative sensitivity in a parallel RCT. In total, 120 eligible, consenting adults were recruited in private dental practice and randomized into 2 groups of 60 patients. One group had room temperature composite restorations placed and the second had composite preheated to 39°C. The primary outcome was sensitivity after 24 h by the visual analog scale (VAS), recorded blind by patients. Secondary outcomes were VAS scores recorded over a month. Blind statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the 24-h VAS score between groups and repeated-measures analysis of variance to assess the change over time. Potential confounders were tested using regression models. A total of 115 patients completed the trial: 57 in the heated composite group and 58 in the room temperature group. Analysis of 24-h VAS scores found no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.162). Examining the potential confounders confirmed the nonsignificant difference between heated and room temperature groups on the 24-h VAS score, after controlling teeth type and preoperative pulp test (effect size = 0.173, P = 0.317). Analysis of the secondary outcomes found significant changes (within-subject effect) in VAS scores over the review period (F statistic = 4.7, P = 0.002) but not a significant (between-subject effect) difference between heated and room temperature groups over time (effect size = 0.102, P = 0.197). There was a significant correlation between preoperative VAS score and postoperative VAS score (P < 0.001). For the restorations in this study, there was no detectable difference in postoperative VAS score between preheated and room temperature composite. Postoperative sensitivity decreased throughout the first month. Postoperative sensitivity was correlated to preoperative sensitivity (ISRCTN 76727312). Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by clinicians when considering the advantages and disadvantages of preheated composite. The study found no evidence of any change in postoperative sensitivity when using preheated composite. Since preheated composite has superior physical properties, its use for routine care can be considered good practice.