Abstract
An impression basically is the negative replica of oral tissues. In case of RPDs, these tissues are the remaining teeth, the residual ridge, and the surrounding mucosa. Among these three, the teeth are the easiest to capture. Any elastic impression material can easily mold the shape of the remaining teeth satisfactorily. The tricky part of an RPD impression is to record the edentulous spaces so that they can deliver additional support to the denture base if necessary. The denture base of an RPD certainly helps the retention and stability; however, for especially Kennedy Class I and II cases with long free end saddles the main input of the denture base is in terms of support. The amount of support from the distal extension bases is directly proportional to the amount of covered area. This area is functionally bounded by the surrounding tissues. Determining the shape of this area under functional load also increases the amount of support by compressing the mucosa within the limits of its resilience.
Before final impression, a preliminary impression is always made with a stock tray, commonly with an alginate impression material. There are more sophisticated alternatives to alginate like polyethers or improved silicones. None of these alternatives serve better for diagnostic impressions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Carlsson GE. Critical review of some dogmas in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res. 2009;53:3–10.
Carlsson GE, Ortorp A, Omar R. What is the evidence base for the efficacies of different complete denture impression procedures? A critical review. J Dent. 2013;41:17–23.
Carr AB, Brown DT. Mccracken’s removable partial prosthodontics. 12th ed. St. Louis/Missouri: Mosby; 2011.
Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48:445–70.
Dumbrigue HB, Esquivel JF. Selective-pressure single impression procedure for tooth-mucosa-supported removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:259–61.
Faria AC, Rodrigues RC, Macedo AP, Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Accuracy of stone casts obtained by different impression materials. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22:293–8.
Feit DB. The altered cast impression technique revisited. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1476–81.
Frank RP, Brudvik JS, Noonan CJ. Clinical outcome of the altered cast impression procedure compared with use of a one-piece cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:468–76.
Kilfeather GP, Lynch CD, Sloan AJ, Youngson CC. Quality of communication and master impressions for the fabrication of cobalt chromium removable partial dentures in general dental practice in England, Ireland and Wales in 2009. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:300–5.
Kitamura A, Kawai Y. Basic investigation of the laminated alginate impression technique: Setting time, permanent deformation, elastic deformation, consistency, and tensile bond strength tests. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59:49–54.
Loney RW. Removable partial denture manual: 2011. http://removpros.dentistry.dal.ca/RemovSite/Manuals_files/RPD%20Manual%2011.pdf.
Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:428–34.
Nallaswamy D. Textbook of prosthodontics. 1st ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd; 2003.
Nassar U, Aziz T, Flores-Mir C. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials as a function of pouring time: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106:126–33.
Ozkurt Z, Dikbas I, Kazazoglu E. Predoctoral prosthodontic clinical curriculum for complete dentures: survey in Turkish dental schools. J Dent Educ. 2013;77:93–8.
Petropoulos VC, Rashedi B. Removable partial denture education in U.S. dental schools. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:62–8.
Phoenix RD, Cagna DR, Defreest CF. Stewart’s clinical removable partial prosthodontics. 4th ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 2008.
Radhi A, Lynch CD, Hannigan A. Quality of written communication and master impressions for fabrication of removable partial prostheses in the Kingdom of Bahrain. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:153–7.
Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:629–42.
Suprabha R, Eswaran B, Eswaran MA, Prabhu R, Geetha KR, Krishna GP, Jagadeshwari. A comparison of dimensional accuracy of addition silicone of different consistencies with two different spacer designs in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:ZC38–41.
The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:10–92.
Todd JA, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, Shellhart WC. Dimensional changes of extended-pour alginate impression materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:55–63.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gençel, B. (2016). Impressions for Removable Partial Dentures. In: Şakar, O. (eds) Removable Partial Dentures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20556-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20556-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20555-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20556-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)