Heat-cured acrylic resin versus light-activated resin: a patient, professional and technician-based evaluation of mandibular implant-supported overdentures.

CONTEXT

Although light-activated resins (Eclipse) have been reported to possess superior physical and mechanical properties compared with the heat-cured acrylic resins (Lucitone-199), a few studies have compared overdentures with a locator attachment constructed from heat-cured acrylic resins with those constructed from light-activated resins.

AIMS

This clinical study was designed to compare the performance of a mandibular implant-supported overdenture constructed from a heat-cured acrylic resin (Lucitone-199) with that of an overdenture constructed from a light-activated resin (Eclipse).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten participants received two identical mandibular implant-retained overdentures (Lucitone-199 and Eclipse) opposing one maxillary denture in a random order. Each mandibular overdenture was delivered and worn for 6 months, and two weeks of rest was advised between wears to minimize any carryover effects. Three questionnaires were devised. The first questionnaire (patient evaluation) focused on evaluating different aspects of the denture and overall satisfaction. The second questionnaire (professional dentist evaluation) was based on a clinical evaluation of soft tissues, complications, and the applied technique. The third questionnaire (technician evaluation) involved ranking the different manufacturing steps of the denture and overall preferences. The obtained data was statistically analyzed using an independent sample t-test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

The clinician and technician preferred the Eclipse dentures because of their technical aspects, whereas the patients preferred the Lucitone-199 dentures for their aesthetic properties.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-supported overdentures constructed from a heat-cured acrylic resin showed superior aesthetics and had a better odor compared with those constructed from a light-cured resin.