Background: This study was undertaken to compare the retention between sectional border molding using low fusing greenstick compound and single step border molding using condensation silicone (putty) impression material in three stages- A. Immediately following border molding, B. After final impression and C. With the finished permanent denture base.
Materials & methods: In this study evaluation of retentive values of sectional border molding (Group I) (custom impression trays border molded with green stick compound ) and single step border molding (Group II) ( border molding with condensation silicone (putty) impression material ). In both techniques definitive wash impression were made with light body condensation silicone and permanent denture base with heat cure polymerization resin.
Results: Group II was significantly higher (mean=8011.43) than Group I (mean=5777.43) in test-A. The t-value (1.5883) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p =0.15). Group I was significantly higher (mean=6718.57) than Group II (mean=5224.29) in test -B. The t-value (1.6909) infers that there was significant difference between Group I and Group II (p=0.17). Group II was higher (mean=4025.14) than Group I (mean=3835.07) in test -C. The t-value was 0.1239. But it was found to be statistically insignificant (p=0.005).
Conclusion: Within the limitation of this clinical study border molding custom tray with low fusing green stick compound provided similar retention as compared to custom impression tray with condensation silicone in permanent denture base. How to cite this article: Yarapatineni R, Vilekar A, Kumar JP, Kumar GA, Aravind P, Kumar PA. Comparative evaluation of border molding, using two different techniques in maxillary edentulous arches - An in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5(6):82-7 .
Keywords: Low fusing compound; maxillary edentulous arches; sectional border molding; silicone (putty) impression material; single step border molding.