Comparative evaluation of

border molding using two

different techniques in maxillary
edentulous arches:
A clinical study
Meena Ajay et.al. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2016
 contents
 Border molding
 Materials
 Introduction
 Null hypothesis
 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
 Technique
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Critical evaluation
 conclusion
 Border Moulding
 Shaping of an impression
material by the
manipulation or action of the
tissues adjacent to the
border of impression tray.

Purpose:
 Border of the tray is made to conform
accurately to the contours of limiting structures.
 Materials
GREEN STICK ELASTOMERIC
COMPOUND IMPRESSION
MATERIAL(POLYETHER)

3. IMPRESSION WAXES
 OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
 Special Tray
 Bunsen Burner
Warm Water
 Cold Water
 Scalpel
 Gloves
 Mask
Syringe( in case of polyether)
Adhesive material in case of polyether
 INTRODUCTION:
 In complete denture prosthodontics, the final impression
stage plays a pivotal role in the success of a complete denture.

 This procedure captures the vestibule through border molding

and then making an impression.

 Time‑honored procedure.
The material used for border molding (plastic state)
should contact the entire vestibular sulcus area at one
insertion and
has two general advantages:

The number of insertions of the trays could

be reduced and

 Development of all borders simultaneously

avoids propagation of errors caused by a
mistake in one section affecting the border
contours in another section.
 Incremental border molding using low fusing compound does
not meet this prerequisite because:
only a part of the functional depth of sulcus and
associated musculature molds the periphery of the tray during
each insertion.

 Another limitation is : short manipulation time of low fusing

compound

 These limitations led to the use of elastomers. Elastomers

exhibit the properties which make them a viable alternative to
low fusing impression compound.
 AIM:

The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the

single-step border molding technique
(injectable heavy viscosity addition silicone) with
sectional border molding technique (low fusing
impression compound) by evaluating the retention
of heat cure trial denture bases.
NULL HYPOTHESIS

The retention of the denture

bases fabricated with single‑
step border molding will be
similar to the retention of
denture bases fabricated with
sectional border molding .
 MATERIALS AND METHODS:
TEST SUBJECTS:
Ten completely
edentulous patients

Primary impression - irreversible hydrocolloid

impression material

Dental stone is poured to obtain the primary cast

Two identical custom trays were made for each patient: 2-3mm
short for tissue reflection [autopolymerizing acrylic resin]
 INCLUSION CRITERIA:

Well‑ formed residual alveolar

ridges
 no severe undercuts or bony
exostosis
 firm mucosa all over the denture
bearing area with no signs of
inflammation

 absence of systemic disease

 average quantity and
consistency of saliva and normal
temporomandibular joint function.
 EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

 Extremely high
palatal vaults were
excluded from the
study.
 TECHNIQUE

Sectional / Single step/simultaneous

Incremental border border molding: done by
moulding : done by injectable heavy
Green stick viscosity addition
impression silicone
compound
 • Add softened green stick compound
along the portion of the tray when the
3
border is intended to be refined.
• Green stick compound is softened over 2
flame till it begins to droop .
• At first the flange of custom tray should
be reduced until they are 2mm short of
1
the Reflection .
SECTIONAL BORDER MOLDING
• Evaluate the retention and stability of 7
border moulded tray.
• After border moulding the moulded 6
section is immersed in cold water.
• The labial vestibule is refined first
followed by buccal vestibule and 5
posterior palatal seal and functional
movement carried out In this area.
intraorally. 4
with warm water before placing
• The material should be tempered
Functional Movement:
In Maxilla:
Labial flange :-
(a)Active movement
(b) Passive movement

Buccal flange :-
1.Buccal frenum area: Performed
Unilaterally
(a)Active:
(b)Passive
 2.Distobuccal area: This Should Be
Performed Bilaterally.
(a)Active
(b)Passive

Posterior Lateral Hamular Notch :-

Active and passive
Posterior Vibrating Line :-
Active movement:
Sequence of border moulding maxilla (a) Labial flange (b) Buccal flange
(c) distobuccal flange (d) posterior palatal seal area.
Tray Preparation After Border Moulding

0.5-1 mm of tracing
Wax spacer is removed material is removed from
to provide space for the outer
impression material inner and top surface of
the border.

Green stick compound is

Material over the removed using a scalpel
posterior palatal seal is and polyether is removed
not removed using either scalpel or
bur

Holes are drilled in all types of custom Trays to provide

escape ways for the final impression material. They Can
be drilled over the relief areas just to ensure an undistorted
impression.
 Technique 1: Sectional Technique 2:single-
border molding step border molding
 Low fusing impression compound .  Injectable heavy viscosity PVS

Buccal and labial molding was carried Labial/buccal borders and

out in sections. posterior palatal seal were
Posterior palatal seal was functionally molded in a manner similar to
recorded in valsalva maneuver. sectional border molding
technique.
 Holes were made over median palatal
raphe,Anterolateral and Posterolateral
regions of the hard palate for relief as  Holes were made following
well as to aid in the retention of the removal of the wax spacer.
impression material.
 A tray adhesive was also
A tray adhesive was applied to the applied to the inner surface of the
inner surface of the tray followed by tray. After the adhesive had dried
making a definitive impression using up, the tray was loaded with light
light viscosity addition silicone viscosity addition silicone .
a b

Figure 1: (a) Sectional border molding technique using low fusing

impression compound, (b) Definitive impression using light viscosity
addition silicone

a b

Figure 2: (a) Single‑ step border molding using injectable heavy

viscosity addition silicone, (b) Definitive impression using light
viscosity addition silicone
 The impressions were boxed, and the
casts were poured.

 Prefabricated stainless steel hooks were

attached to anterior palatal region of the
waxed up bases

 The casts with waxed‑up bases were

flasked, and processed in a curing unit.

 After they had been processed,

deflasked, and decast, the bases were
carefully finished . Heat polymerized trial denture
base with prefabricated stainless
steel loop incorporated into it, (b)
The finished bases were inserted, Force meter for evaluation of
checked in the mouth with pressure‑ retention of heat polymerized trial
denture bases
indicating paste, and adjusted.
Measuring the retention of two denture bases:
A digital force meter was used
to record the retention of denture
bases obtained from two border
molding techniques.

Retention of denture bases was

clinically evaluated by:
1. opening the mouth wide,
2. side to side movement of
mandible,
3. making moderate lip and cheek

movements, and
4. checking for any dislodgement
of the denture bases.
The denture bases were also subjected to a
dislodgement test by the operator, evaluating the seal
on the opposite side by a rolling pressure of the index
finger away from the side being checked.

The effect of posterior palatal seal was checked in

the same manner by applying pressure in the anterior
region of the denture bases
 RESULTS

In this study, evaluation of the retention offered by single‑step

border molding (Group 1) and sectional border molding (Group 2)
of ten subjects were compared.
 The mean retentive values (kgf) of two groups are illustrated.
For comparison of the data, Student’s t‑test was employed.

The data shown in represent the inferential statistics for comparing the
two groups.

The t value (3.031) infers that there is a significant difference between

sectional and single‑step border molding (P = 0.014).

However, on clinical evaluation, the retention of the heat polymerized

trial denture bases fabricated with both techniques was acceptable.
 A study conducted on 10 completely edentulous patients.
Group 1: border molding with green stick compound.
Group 2: border molding with putty consistency addition silicone.
Group 3:border molding and impression were done by polyether impression
material in a single step.
 Permanent denture bases were fabricated with wire loop at the center. .
Retention was assessed in all three groups using a digital force gauge.

Conclusion: Green stick compound with light body final wash showed the lowest mean
values of complete denture retention. Dentures made using polyether final impression
material showed the highest mean values of complete denture retention followed by
putty rubber base border molding with light body final wash.

clinical significance: In this study, polyether showed the highest mean retentive value
compared with other tested materials; therefore, it could possibly provide some future
innovative means in achieving optimal denture retention.

Evaluation and Comparison of the Effect of Different Border

Molding Materials on Complete Denture Retention: An in vivo
Study Renu B Pachar, Youginder Singla, Prince Kumar
 This article describes an active closed mouth impression technique with one
stage border molding using putty silicone material as a substitute for low
fusing compound.
Heavy body putty silicone, which is viscous and kneadable, has been tried for
border molding as a preference to low fusing compound. Heavy-bodied silicone
is slow-setting, and is made available in a homogenous consistency. It can be
placed continuously along the entire border of an individual tray, which can be
molded at a single stage .

Closed mouth method with occlusal rims records the anterior lingual sulcus
extension better than the open mouth technique. Recording the various sounds like
linguodental (Th), linguo alveolar (T,D), is possible only with an occlusal rim
which represents the dental arch.
In a mouth open situation these sounds cannot be produced. These sounds
influence the position of the alveolingual sulcus. More importantly the position
of tongue during swallowing cannot be recorded with the mouth kept open.
Swallowing is not possible with the operators finger present between the lips.

Single Stage Silicone Border Molded Closed

Mouth Impression Technique—E. G. R. Solomon
 DISCUSSION

An accurate impression will always ensure satisfactory retention,

stability, and comfort in a complete denture patient.

There are numerous factors associated with the retention of

complete dentures which can be achieved by means of meticulous
border molding.

Studies have attempted to evaluate and compare the efficacies of

these techniques. However, it is still equivocal about the efficacy of
the two techniques.
The low fusing impression compound was used for sectional border
molding because
Ease of manipulation,
 Availability,
 Popularity, and cost‑ effectiveness.

There have been studies comparing low fusing impression

compound with putty consistency of elastomeric impression material
with varying results.
In this study, an injectable heavy viscosity PVS was
chosen over putty due to its
 excellent manipulative consistency,
adequate flow,
dimensional stability and
adequate working time.
 LIMITATIONS

 Patient satisfaction score and number of post insertion

adjustment appointments required for each border molding
technique have not been taken into consideration.

Larger sample size could be considered for better extrapolation

of results to a clinical scenario.

Short manipulation time of low fusing compound which does not

allow sufficient time for vestibular tissues to act and mold the
borders of the custom tray.
 CRITICAL
EVALUATION?

The retention was evaluated for heat

polymerized trial denture bases but not the final
dentures.

comparison of retention of mandibular denture

bases fabricated with sectional and single‑ step
border molding could be considered.
 CONCLUSION:
• Sectional border molding technique proved to be
more retentive as compared to single‑ step border
molding although clinically the retention appeared
comparable
• Single‑ step border molding could be a viable and
advantageous alternative to conventional border molding and
can be accomplished using injectable heavy viscosity addition
silicone.

•The choice of a particular border molding technique should be

based on clinical indications, operator skill, and convenience.
REFERENCES
1. Davis DM. Developing an analogue/substitute for the maxillary denture‑
bearing area. In: Boucher’s Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients.
11th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1998. p. 141‑61.
2. Green JW. Green Brothers’ Clinical Course in Dental Prosthesis. 5th ed.
Detroit: Detroit Dental Mfg. Co.; 1910. p. 1.
3. Woelfel JB, Hickey JC, Berg T Jr. Contour variations in one patient’s
impressions made by seven dentists. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:1 ‑9.
4. 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.
5. Firtell DN, Koumjian JH. Mandibular complete denture impressions with
fluid wax or polysulfide rubber: A comparative study. J Prosthet Dent
1992;67:801‑4.
6. Felton DA, Cooper LF, Scurria MS. Predictable impression procedures for
complete dentures. Dent Clin North Am 1996;40:39‑51.