Review Article (Open access) |
---|
Int. J.
Life. Sci. Scienti. Res., 4(3):
1801-1804, May 2018
From
Conventional to Unconventional- The Denture Journey
Nami Sheth1, Rubina
Ali2, Gaurang Mistry3, Omkar Shetty4
1MDS
3rd, Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil School of Dentistry, Nerul,
India
2Professor,
Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil School of Dentistry, Nerul,
India
3Professor
& Head, Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil School of Dentistry, Nerul,
India
4Professor
and Dean, Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil School of Dentistry, Nerul,
India
*Address for Correspondence: Dr. Nami
Sheth, MDS 3rd Student, Department of Prosthodontics, D. Y. Patil
School of Dentistry, Nerul, India
ABSTRACT- In
the new generation of dentistry where implants and fixed prosthesis are a common
mode of treatment, a wide range of patients and clinicians still opt for
removable dentures as a treatment of choice. With the
patients demanding better aesthetics, function, and comfort newer materials
were introduced for the fabrication of dentures. Hard
and soft tissue undercuts are frequently encountered in the fabrication of
prosthesis in partially as well as completely edentulous arches. Flexible
denture offers a simpler and cost-effective treatment for the oral
rehabilitation of such cases. This article reviews the indications and
advantages of the flexible dentures and enlists the various commercially
available flexible denture base materials.
Key words– Flexible
denture, Valplast, Denture base materials, Acrylic
denture
INTRODUCTION- Clinical,
dentist and patient immanent factors influence the choice between several
treatment options for replacing missing teeth. Loss of teeth, which may be due
to trauma, dental diseases, pathology, or otherwise not only alters the
psychological thought of the patients but also disturbs the esthetics,
phonetics, and functional occlusion[1]. The replacement of missing
teeth in a patient’s mouth is very important to restore aesthetics and regain
function. There are many different treatment modalities available- dental
implants, complete dentures, removable partial dentures and fixed partial
dentures. Each of them has their own set of benefits and disadvantages too.
The most commonly used
material for the fabrication of complete/ partial dentures so far has been PMMA.
Some problems with these prostheses are difficult to address, such as insertion
in undercut areas, brittleness of methyl methacrylate,
which leads to fracture, and allergy to methyl methacrylate
monomer [2].
The introduction of flexible dentures made it easier
for tackling such problems while fabricating dentures (Fig. 1). The nature of
flexible denture material which is flexible and strong at the same time makes
it perfectly suited to the variety of natural conditions in the mouth,
simplifying design and enabling the flexible nylon resin to act as a built-in
stress-breaker that provides superior function and stress distribution [3].
Fig. 1:
Mandibular flexible denture
Literature Review
Materials- Thermoplastic
materials are used for the fabrication of flexible dentures. A thermoplastic
material is a polymer which becomes pliable or moldable above a specific
temperature and returns to a solid state upon cooling. Flexible dentures are
made from a nylon-derived denture based thermoplastic material that does not
sacrifice function and preserves aesthetics.
Unique
features-the semi-crystalline nylon composition provides strength, flexibility,
transparency, high impact resistance, color stability, high creep resistance,
high fatigue endurance, excellent wear characteristics, good solvent
resistance, no porosity, no biological material build up or odors or stains,
low water sorption and good dimensional stability, monomer and metal free and
the microcrystalline structure is easy to finish and polish like acrylic [4].
The most commonly used
material for fabrication of flexible dentures is Valplast
(Valpalst Int. Corp. USA). It is a nylon polyamide
thermoplastic material (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2: Valplast
Other commercially available materials are– Flexiplast (Bredent Germany),
Pro-flex, Sunflex, Lucitone
FRS, Flexite, Flexite M.P
etc.
The material is available in two forms:
1)
Pre-packaged
cartridges (Fig.3)
2) Granular form (Fig. 4)
Indications- The
appropriate and acceptable uses for a flexible partial denture include all
cases of conventional partial denture indications plus the areas where
conventional partials are limited or contra-indicated [3].
1. Flexible dentures are indicated where bilateral
undercuts are present as they utilize the undercuts in the ridge for retention.
2. Where better aesthetics is required e.g. clasp has
been given in the esthetic zone the flexible denture is a better option as it
does not have metal clasps
3. Patients who allergic to acrylic monomer
4. As it is cost-effective patients who cannot afford
implants
5. Patients with large bony exostoses
that cannot be removed
6. It is also indicated in patients having microstomia, systemic diseases like scleroderma [5],
or other cases where there is restricted mouth opening.
7.
Patients with
maxillary tuberosity undercut often pose challenges
in denture fabrication. Flexible denture flanges for patients exhibiting
undercut tuberosities can solve this problem [6].
Additionally, they can
also be used as- obturators, cosmetic gum veneers,
orthodontic devices, bruxism appliances, temporary
prosthesis and unilateral space maintainers.
Contraindications- They are contraindicated in certain cases, given
below:
1.
Bilateral distal
extension with knife-edge ridges
2.
Unilateral
distal extension
3.
Deep overbite
cases
4.
If there is less
than 4mm inter-occlusal space posteriorly
5.
Little remaining
dentition with minimal undercuts for retention
6.
Bilateral
free-end distal extension on maxilla with extremely atrophied alveolar ridges [3]
Advantages- Flexible dentures have various advantages over the
conventional acrylic denture:
1.
Better
aesthetics, the translucency of the material picks up the tissue undertones
2.
Metal-free
restoration, hence no clasping is visible on the tooth surface
3.
The material has
better flexibility hence can be easily inserted in patients with undercuts
4.
Ability to
engage the undercuts giving it better retention and stability
5.
No periodic
adjustments are needed for the clasp to keep them tight
6.
Good
biocompatibility
7.
Less bulky and
lighter, more comfortable
8.
In cases of
undercut due to tilted teeth, the flexibility of the material makes it possible
to insert the prosthesis over the angulated teeth [3]
9.
Rebasing is
possible
10. Flexible dentures will not cause sore spots due to
negative reaction to acrylic resins and will absorb small amounts of water to
make the denture more soft tissue compatible [7].
Disadvantages
1.
Intended for
generally provisional or temporary applications
2.
Major drawback:
de-bonding of the acrylic teeth from the nylon denture base as there is no
chemical bonding between them
3.
The procedure is
technique sensitive: extreme caution needs to be taken while processing so as
to not come in contact with any of the heated substances
4. One has to purchase separate instruments to adjust/
trim the flexible denture so it might add to the cost
5. The Valplast shows
clinically significant chromatic instability, so the flexible removable partial
denture might show staining and discoloration with time [8]
6. The elastic modulus of flexible nylon (Valplast) is lesser than that of PMMA [9]
7.
Difficult to
reline, repair or add teeth
8.
The patients
that have periodontal problem may have several teeth that are mobile due to
bone loss. Therefore, the whole area keeps on flexing causing unfavorable
forces that in turn result in more bone loss [3]
CONCLUSIONS-
Because of their flexible nature
and strength of the material the flexible dentures can be a good option for the
replacement of missing teeth when the patient is concerned about aesthetics.
They also can be used in most of the cases where the conventional acrylic
dentures do not yield good results. Proper diagnosis, treatment planning
followed by proper insertion techniques can yield good long-term results. More
research in the field of dentistry will result in better materials and viable
options for making removable prosthodontics more
comfortable and more aesthetically acceptable to the patients.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
Thank you to my professor, Dr. Rubina Tabassum for helping me in
every step of my work.
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
Dr. Nami Sheth- Data collection,
analysis, interpretation and drafting of the article.
Dr. Rubina Tabassum- Drafting
of the article and revision of the article.
Dr. Gaurang Mistry and Dr. Omkar Shetty- Revision and final approval of the article.
REFERENCES
1.
Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Carlsson GE. Boucher’s prosthodontic
treatment for edentulous patients. 11th ed,
St. Louis, Mosby: 1997; pp. 337-342.
2. Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 10th
ed, Philadelphia, WB Saunders: 1996; pp. 238.
3. Thakral GK, Aeran H, Yadav
B, Thakral R. Flexible Partial Dentures - A hope for
the Challenged Mouth. People’s J of Sc Res., 2012; 5(2): 55-59.
4. Thumati P, Padmaja
S, Reddy RK- Flexible Dentures in Prosthodontics-
An overview. Ind J of dental adv., 2013; 5(4):
1380-85.
5.
Samet N, Tau S, Findler M, Susarla SM, Findler M. Flexible,
removable partial denture for a patient with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma)
and microstomia: a clinical report and a three-year
follow-up. J Cosmet Laser Ther.,
2012; 14(2): 102-6.
6.
Lowe LG.
Flexible denture flanges for patients exhibiting undercut tuberosities
and reduced width of the buccal vestibule: A clinical
report. J Prosthet Dent., 2004; 92(2):128-131.
7.
Shamnur SN, Jagadeesh KN, Kalavathi SD, Kashinath KR.
Flexible dentures– An alternate for rigid dentures? J of dental sc and res.,
2010; 1(1): 74-79.
8.
Goiato MC, Santos DM, Haddad MF, Pesqueira
AA. Effect of accelerated aging on the microhardness
and color stability of flexible resins for dentures. Braz. oral res. 2010;
24(1); 114-119.
9.
Soygun K, Bolayir G, Boztug A. Mechanical and thermal properties of polyamide
versus reinforced PMMA denture base materials. J Adv Prosthodont.,
2013; 5(2): 153-60.