References

McCord JF, Grant AA. Prosthetics: impression making. Br Dent J. 2000; 188
McCord JF, Tyson KW. A conservative prosthodontic option for the treatment of edentulous patients with atrophic (flat) mandibular ridges. Br Dent J. 1997; 182:469-472
Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988; 17:232-236
Scott BJ, Hunter RV. Creating complete dentures that are stable in function. Dent Update. 2008; 35:259-267
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec. 2002; 17
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients – the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207:185-186
McCord JF, McNally LM, Smith PW, Grey NJ. Does the nature of the definitive impression material influence the outcome of (mandibular) complete dentures?. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2005; 13:105-108
Guidelines in Prosthetic and Implant Dentistry. In: Ogden A (ed). London: Quintessence; 1996
Field J. First impressions count: how to take a primary impression. Dent Nursing. 2016; 12:72-79
Turner JW, Moazzez R, Banerjee A. First impressions count. Dent Update. 2012; 39:455-471
Basker R. Prosthetic Treatment of the Edentulous Patient, 5th edn. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2011

Technique Tips Prosthodontics: The Admix Impression

From Volume 45, Issue 10, November 2018 | Pages 991-993

Authors

Kasim Butt

BDS, MJDF RCS Eng, PgCert Dent Ed

Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Articles by Kasim Butt

Email Kasim Butt

Karun Dewan

BDS, MFDS RCSEng, LDS RCSEng, MSc(Prosth Dent), FDS RCS(Rest Dent)

Staff Grade, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Morriston Hospital, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK

Articles by Karun Dewan

Article

The ‘admix impression’ is a definitive secondary impression technique used in the management of severely resorbed mandibular ridges covered with atrophic mucosa.1 First described by McCord and Tyson, it involves the use of a viscous admix of impression cake compound and greenstick tracing compound.2 Mandibular ridges equating to Cawood and Howell ridge classification V and VI often pose clinical challenges when constructing a satisfactory conventional complete denture.3 As the mandibular alveolar ridge resorbs there is a reduced area of support available for a mandibular complete denture.4 The ridge may be complicated further with folds of thin atrophic (non-keratinized) mucosa, which may cause pain and discomfort upon contact with a denture base.1

The McGill Consensus in 20025 and the York Consensus in 20096 concluded that a two implant-supported mandibular overdenture is the first choice standard of care, as opposed to a conventional mandibular denture for edentulous patients. However, this option may not always be feasible in some cases owing to financial constraints, patient choice or systemic medical conditions. A randomized control trial found that patients with a mandibular ridge equating to Cawood and Howell ridge classification V (Figure 1) and VI preferred mandibular dentures constructed with definitive impressions made using the admix impression technique.7 The aim of this paper is to re-visit the ‘admix impression’ technique to aid the practitioner in the construction of a conventional mandibular complete denture in patients with a severely resorbed atrophic mandibular ridge.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available