The current rates of edentulism have been estimated to be between 7% and 69% of the adult population internationally. In the United States, while the incidence of edentulism continues to decline, rapid population growth coupled with current economic conditions suggest that edentulism and conventional denture use will continue at current or higher numbers. Unfortunately, evidence-based guidelines for the care and maintenance of removable complete denture prostheses do not exist. In 2009, the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) formed a task force to establish evidence-based guidelines for the care and maintenance of complete dentures. The task force comprised members of the ACP, the Academy of General Dentistry, American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs, the American Dental Hygienists' Association, the National Association of Dental Laboratories, and representatives from GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare. The review process included the assessment of over 300 abstracts and selection of over 100 articles meeting inclusion criteria of this review. The task force reviewed synopses of the literature and formulated 15 evidence-based guidelines for denture care and maintenance. These guidelines were reviewed by clinical experts from the participating organizations and were published in February 2011 issue of The Journal of the American Dental Association for widespread distribution to the dental community. These guidelines reflect the views of the task force.

No abstract

Denture stomatitis is a common inflammatory condition affecting the mucosa underlying complete dentures. It is associated with denture microbial biofilm, poor denture hygiene, poor denture quality, and nocturnal denture use. Numerous treatment methodologies have been used to treat stomatitis; however, a gold standard treatment has not been identified. The aim of this systematic review is to report on the current knowledge available in studies representing a range of evidence on the treatment of denture stomatitis.

Statement of problem Trueness and precision are used to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral optical impressions. Although the in vivo precision of intraoral optical impressions has been reported, in vivo trueness has not been evaluated because of limitations in the available protocols. Purpose The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of optical and conventional impressions by using a novel study design. Material and methods Five study participants consented and were enrolled. For each participant, optical and conventional (vinylsiloxanether) impressions of a custom-made intraoral Co-Cr alloy reference appliance fitted to the mandibular arch were obtained by 1 operator. Three-dimensional (3D) digital models were created for stone casts obtained from the conventional impression group and for the reference appliances by using a validated high-accuracy reference scanner. For the optical impression group, 3D digital models were obtained directly from the intraoral scans. The total mean trueness of each impression system was calculated by averaging the mean absolute deviations of the impression replicates from their 3D reference model for each participant, followed by averaging the obtained values across all participants. The total mean precision for each impression system was calculated by averaging the mean absolute deviations between all the impression replicas for each participant (10 pairs), followed by averaging the obtained values across all participants. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA (α=.05), first to assess whether a systematic difference in trueness or precision of replicate impressions could be found among participants and second to assess whether the mean trueness and precision values differed between the 2 impression systems. Results Statistically significant differences were found between the 2 impression systems for both mean trueness (P=.010) and mean precision (P=.007). Conventional impressions had higher accuracy with a mean trueness of 17.0 ±6.6 µm and mean precision of 16.9 ±5.8 µm than optical impressions with a mean trueness of 46.2 ±11.4 µm and mean precision of 61.1 ±4.9 µm. Conclusions Complete arch (first molar-to-first molar) optical impressions were less accurate than conventional impressions but may be adequate for quadrant impressions.

No abstract