Method for enhancing retention in complete denture bases

Masahiko Kikuchi, DDS, PhD, a Fazal Ghani, BSc, BDS, MSc, PhD, b and Makoto Watanabe, DDS, PhDc

Tohoku University School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan

S t a t e m e n t o f problem. Physical retention of a denture depends on adhesion of a salivary film to its fitring surface and supporting tissues. Adhesion is influenced by many factors. Purpose. This study examined the effect of the texture of the fitting surface on denture retention. Material and m e t h o d s . According to the method developed, mucosal-supported palatal bases were made for 10 dentate subjects who had no obvious oral disease, history of allergy to dental materials, or palatal mucosal undercuts. A specially designed strain gauge force transducer and a pen-chart recorder were used to record forces that were needed to dislodge the bases from the palate. Forces were recorded 30 times (10/day) for each subject. Similar forces were recorded after the fitting surface of each base was uniformly air-particle abraded under 4 kg/cm 2 of pressure for 1 minute with 50-p,m grit alumina dust. Data were analyzed with a 2-sample Student t test and a paired t test. Results. Substantial variations for all measurements were observed both between and within subjects. Notwithstanding, these variations, the mean retention of the bases significantly (/'<.05) increased by more than 2-fold when the fitting surface was air-particle abraded. These force values were similar to those recorded previously for well-fitting mucosal-supported palatal bases in a separate group of dentate subjects. Conclusions. While reinforcing the importance of good adaptation of the denture to the tissues, these findings also suggest that an additional improvement in denture retention can be accomplished after the fitting surface is air-particle abraded. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:399-403.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Because air-particle abrading the fitting surface significantly improved the retention

of the test bases, this method might be useful in patients who complain of a lack of retention for dentures that are otherwise weU-fitting and accurate.

Denture retention denotes the force required to completely remove a denture from its basal seat. 1 Influence o f adhesive and cohesive forces, surface tension, atmospheric pressure, viscosity and volume o f saliva, and gravity on denture retention has been demonstrated. 2-7 Denture retention by air depression between the denture and the mucosa could not be long-lasting because constant elasticity is not the histophysiologic feature o f the mucosa. 8 A sufficient layer o f saliva is essential for retention as a result o f physical effects. 9-11 Many models have been devised to determine the relative importance o f various physical factors that act through the salivary film at the denture-tissue interface.lO,12,13 Denture retention is understood to be a function o f saliva surface tension, its viscosity, the thickness o f the salivary film, the contact surface, and the saliva denture c o n t a c t angle.9,14,15
Presented at the 75th general session of the International Association for Dental Research and Exhibition, Orlando, Fla., March 1997. aLecturer, Department of Geriatric Dentistry. bVisiting Scientist, Department of Geriatric Dentistry; and Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Khyber College of Dentistry. cprofessor and Head, Department of Geriatric Dentistry. APRIL 1999

Mathematical models have demonstrated that displacement o f the contact line o f the liquid film on the denture under the application o f dislodging force plays a predominant role in denture retention.S, 16 Therefore a modification o f dentures by making the fitting surface more hydrophilic and wettable may affect denture retention. The purpose o f this study was to examine the effect o f texture o f the fitting surface on the adhesion o f saliva and its consequent clinical effect on denture retention. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Healthy dentate subjects from the staff at Tohoku University School o f Dentistry, who had no obvious oral disease, history o f allergy to dental materials, or palatal mucosal undercuts, were invited to participate in this study. T h e r e was no attempt to standardize palatal form in patient selection. Their ages ranged from 25 to 31 years (mean age 27.2 years). Complete sets o f data were collected from 10 subjects (7 men and 3 women) by including fresh recruits as replacements for those who left the experiment for various reasons. A maxillary cast using dental stone (New Plastone, GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan) was prepared for each subject
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 399

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

KIKUCHI, GHANI, AND WATANABE

Fig. 2. Strain gauge force transducer.

50

4O
A

"5
o.

2o
r ~ = 0.9999 10

2 Force(N)

Fig. 3. Force-output relationship of transducer.

Fig. 1. Nonfitting surface (A) and fitting surface (B) of test base.

from impressions made with a stock tray and irreversible hydrocolloid impression material (Aroma Fine Mixer Type, GC Cow). Autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Tray Resin II, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) was used to fabricate a standardized design mucosal-supported palatal base on each subject's maxillary cast according to a previously developed method. 17 Adaptation of each base to its cast was subsequently perfected by relining its fitting surface with quick-setting autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Unifast, GC Cow). Each of the mucosal-supported test prostheses extended to the junction of the hard and soft palates posteriorly, and to within 3 mm of the palatal gingival margins. With quick-setting autopolymerizing acrylic resin, a string was secured in the palate of each base to detach it from the subject's palate, and hence to record the amount of force required for dislodgment. Figure 1 illustrates various aspects of the test bases.
400

A specially designed strain gauge force transducer (Fig. 2) was made to record the force required to dislodge the base from the subject's palate. Forces were traced with a pen-chart recorder. During calibration, the transducer showed a highly linear relationship between the applied force and voltage output (Fig. 3). The transducer was capable of recording forces much higher than those expected under the experimental conditions. The transducer was always calibrated before and after each test session, and no error of any kind was noted in the testing system. None of the subjects experienced any discomfort from the level of forces needed to dislodge the test bases from their palates. Retention force measurement Each subject was asked to sit comfortably in a dental chair with their head on the headrest and the occlusal plane of the maxillary teeth parallel to the floor. The subjects were trained to manipulate the base in their mouth in a consistent manner with uniform digital pressure until it occupied a comfortable and accurate position (Fig. 4, A). One minute was then allowed for the base to reach a stable equilibrium position in relation to the palatal mucosa before it was detached from the palate (Fig. 4, B). For each subject,
V O L U M E 81 N U M B E R 4

KIKUCHI, GHANI, AND WATANABE

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

20

z o
=o

1.5

1.0

0.5

l
Before air alDrasion

After air abrasion

l/

Fig. 5. Mean retention forces (N) before and after air-particle

abrasion (N = 10).

Fig. 4. Base in subject's mouth (A) and its detachment from palate and force recording (B).

on every occasion, the force required to dislodge the test prosthesis from the palate was recorded 10 times, and it was repeated on 3 days. Thirty force values were obtained for the test prosthesis for each subject. The same test regimen was repeated for each subject after the fitting surface o f the prosthesis was uniformly abraded under 4 k g / c m 2 of pressure for 1 minute with 50 ~tm grit alumina dust (Power Blast 50 N, OkamotoShiken, Shiga, Japan). S t a t i s t i c a l analysis To compare the retention forces o f the test base before and after air-particle abrasion, a 2-sample Student t test for individual subjects and a paired t test for the whole group were used. Statistical significance was defined at a 5% level of significance. RESULTS The mean forces recorded before and after air-particle abrading the fitting surface of the bases for individual subjects are shown in Table I. Mean forces for the whole group in both conditions are depicted in Figure 5. There were substantial variations in forces both between and within subjects for all measurements.
APRIL 1999

Notwithstanding these variations, the mean forces increased after the fitting surface o f the bases was abraded, except for 1 subject. The forces required to dislodge the bases before air-particle abrading ranged from 0 to 2.41 N, whereas those required after air-particle abrading were between 0 and 4.04 N. In 7 subjects, the retention forces of the air-particle abraded bases were significantly higher than those recorded before treatment, whereas a significant decrease after air-particle abrasion was seen in 1 subject. Statistical analyses of the combined group data before and after treatment showed that air-particle abraded bases required significantly greater forces (Table I). Retention after air-particle abrading the fitting surface of the bases was up to 5.49-fold greater than that recorded before air-particle abrading. On average, air-particle abrading increased retention by more than 2-fold (Fig. 5).

DISCUSSION
In our study, the effect o f air-particle abrasion on retention forces of the test bases was evaluated and the air-particle abraded bases demonstrated significantly higher retention than those before treatment. The mucosal-supported palatal test bases were used in a previous study to record retention due purely to physical forces with no contribution from any mechanical undercuts or muscular interference. 17 These bases were designed to simulate a conventional complete denture base. However, in clinical situations, the retention forces o f well-fitting maxillary complete dentures may be even higher than the values recorded for the bases used in our study. The force transducer was capable and reliable for measuring the forces required to dislodge the bases from the palates of the subjects in our study. The force-output relationship was highly linear (Fig. 3). There were substantial variations both between and within subjects for all of the measurements of retention
401

THE JOURNAl

OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

KIKUCHI,

GHANI,

AND WATANABE

Table I. Mean retention forces, ranges (N), standard deviations, and ratios of the retention forces before and after air-particle abrading the firing surface of the test bases
Before air-particle abrasion Subject
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

After air-particle abrasion (SD)

(0.18) (0.61) (0.25) (0.09) (0.16) (0.48) (0.23) (0.20) (0.28) (0.23) (0.27)

Mean
0.17 1.00 0.21 0.09 0.20 0.52 0.19 0.27 0.49 0.28 0.34

Range
0.01-0.71 0.14-2.41 0.01-0.91 0.00-0.45 0.01-0.64 0.05-1.85 0.00-0.90 0.01-0,76 0.01-1.16 0.01-0.79 0.00-2.41

Mean
0.93 2.35 0.22 0.26 0.14 1.19 0.02 0.66 0.66 0.59 0.70

Range
0.30-2.25 1.01 -4.04 0.01-0.71 0.00-1,06 0.01-0.36 0.27-2.70 0.00-0.21 0.01-1.70 0.31-1.34 0.27-1.16 0.00-4.04

(SD)
(0.45) (0.75) (0.20) (0.23) (0.11) (0.64) (0.05) (0.45) (0.27) (0.24) (0,69) ** ** NS ** NS ** ** ** * ** *

Ratio
5,49 2.35 1.02 2.76 0,71 2.78 0.13 2.45 1.35 2.12 2.05

For each subject, the mean values are based on 30 measurements (10/day), and the mean values for the whole group in each condition are based on 10 forces (I0 subjects). *P<.05; **P<.01; NS = not significant.

forces in this study as evidenced in the high standard deviations. This may be due to variations in the seating force applied by the subjects and its consequent effect on retention of the base, as noted by Ow and Beam. 18 There was a decrease in force noted for 1 subject after air-particle abrasion in our study. The variation of the seating force by this subject may have greatly influenced the result because the retention of the base for this subject was rather smaU from the start. Variations in palatal dimensions and structure, such as surface area, length, depth, and angulation of the palates, can also influence the ultimate retention of a test base in situ. It is worth noting that variations of this extent have been reported in clinical studies that involve the measurement of oral forces) 9 Retention forces of bases used in our study were within the range recorded by others,17,18 and our results could even be compared with those values recorded by Tallgren2~ for maxillary complete dentures, which were in the order of 3.9 to 4.7 N for the first year of denture use. The limit of effectiveness of the salivary film in retaining the denture base might depend on the nature of its adhesion to the fitting surface of the base. It was hypothesized that an altered fitting surface may give better results than a conventional fitting surfacc of the base made after routine processing procedures. As a result, air-particle abrasion produced a uniform increase in roughness and a consequent increase in the surface area of the test base and improved the adhesion of saliva to the surface. Our findings are in agreement with those o f Monsencgo et al,]6 who showed that acrylic resin disks with air-particle abraded surfaces exhibited greater contact-angle hysteresis, namely, a greater difference between the advancing contact angle (0A) and the receding contact angle (OR) than untreated acrylic
402

resin disks. In explaining the mechanism o f this increase in contact-angle hysteresis, they noted that air-particle abrasion made the surface porous, and thereby encouraged saliva droplets to be entrapped in these pores, which rendered the resin surface more hydrophilic and wettable. Consequently, more resistance would be offered by the meniscus to recede at the denture-tissue interface. A possible drawback of this procedure is that microbes may adhere to a fitting surface that has been roughened by air-particle abrasion. In a laboratory study, Yamauchi et al21 examined the effect of various resin denture bases with different surface textures on the adherence of microorganisms. They found that Candida albicans adhered most strongly to bases with a roughened surface. Although clinical trials are needed to confirm the in vitro findings, it is always advisable to strongly emphasize the importance of oral and denture hygiene in patients who wear such prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicated that air-particle abrading the intaglio at bases significantly improved the base retention (P<.01 to .05) in 7 of 10 subjects. REFERENCES
1. Lindstrom RE, Pawelchak J, Heyd A, Tarbet WJ. Physical-chemical aspects of denture retention and stability: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:371-5. 2. Bril[ N. Factors in the mechanism of full denture retention--a discussion of selected papers. Dent Pract Dent Rec 1967;18:9-19. 3. Mack AO. Full dentures. Bristol: John Wright & Sons, Ltd.; 1971. p. 94. 4. Murray MD, Darvell BW. The evolution of the complete denture base. Theories of complete denture retention--a review. Part 1. Aust Dent J 1993;38:216-9. 5. Murray MD, Darvell BW. The evolution of the complete denture base. Theories of complete denture retention--a review. Part 2. Aust Dent J 1993;38:299-305.

VOLUME 81 NUMBER 4

KIKUCHI, GHANI, AND WATANABE

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETICDENTISTRY

6. Murray ME), Darrell BW. The evolution of the complete denture base. Theories of complete denture retention--a review. Part 3. Aust Dent J 1993;38:389-93. 7. Murray MD, Darrell BW. The evolution of the complete denture base. Theories of complete denture retention--a review. Part 4. Aust Dent J 1993;38:450-5. 8. Monsenego P, Proust J. Complete denture retention. Part I: physical analysis of the mechanism. Hysteresis of the solid-liquid contact angle. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:189-96. 9. Ostlund SG, Saliva and denture retention. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:65863. 10, Craig RG, Berry GC, Peyton FA. Physical factors related to denture retention. J Prosthet Dent 1960;10:459-67. 1 I. Kawazoe Y, Hamada T. The role of saliva in retention of maxillary complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40:131-6. 12, Tyson ION. Physical factors in retention of complete upper dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1967;I 8:90-7. 13. O'Brien WJ, Base retention. Dent Olin North Am 1980;24:123-30. 14. Stanitz JD. An analysis of the part played by the fluid film in denture retention. ] Am Dent Assoc 1948;37:168-72. I S. Blahova Z, Neuman M. Physical factors in retention of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25:230-5. 16. Monsenego P, Baszkin A, Costa ML, Lejoyeux J. Complete denture retention. Part lh wettability studies on various acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:308-12, 17. Ghani F, Picton DC, Likeman PR. Some factors affecting retention forces with the use of denture fixatives in vivo. Br Dent ] 1991;171:15-21.

18. Ow RK, Beam EM. A method of studying the effect of adhesives on denture retention. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:332-7. 19. Likeman PR. Some investigations on lingual responses to a dental prosthetic appliance. [PhD Thesis.] London: University of London; 1985. 20. Tallgren A. Longitudinal studies on denture retention. Odont Tskr 1959; 67:314-35. 21. Yamauchi M, Yamamoto K, Wakabayashi M, Kawano J. In vitro adherence of microorganisms to denture base resin with different surface texture. Dent Mater J 1990;9:19-24.

Reprint requests to:

DR M~AHIKO ~IKUCHL DEPARTMENTOF GERIATRICDENTISTRY TOHOKU UNIVERSITY SCHOOLOF DENTISTRY 4-1, SEIRYO-MACHI,AOBA-KU

SENDAl980-8575 JAPAN FAX: 81-22-717-8399 E-MAiL:kikuchi@mandib[e.dent.tohoku.ac.jp Copyright 9 1999 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic

Dentistry.
0022-3913199158.00 + 0. 10/1/95547

Bound volumes available to subscribers Bound volumes of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry are available to subscribers (only) for the 1999 issues from the publisher at a cost of $92.00 ($106.00 international) for Vol. 81 (January-June) and Vol. 82 (July-December). Shipping charges are included. Each bound volume contains a subject and author index, and all advertising is removed. Copies are shipped within 30 days after publication of the last issue in the volume. The binding is durable buckram with the journal name, volume number, and year stamped in gold on the spine. Volumes 79 and 80 are also available. Payment must accompany all orders. Contact Mosby, Inc., Subscription Services, 11830 Westline Industrial Drive, St. Louis, MO 63146-3318, USA; phone (800)453-4351, or (314)453-4531. Subscriptions must be in force to qualify. Bound volumes are not available in place o f a regular Journal subscription.

APRIL 1999

403