PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure patients' satisfaction and their preference between mandibular dentures withpermanent silicone-based resilient denture liner (SR) and conventional heat-activated acrylic resin (AR), both opposed by acrylic resin-based maxillary complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-eight edentulous patients who had fulfilled selection criteria and provided informed consent were enrolled in this trial. Subjects were allocated randomly to either arm of cross-over groups (AR-SR/SR-AR), stratified by gender, using a random permuted block within the strata method. The AR-SR group received AR denture treatment followed by SR denture treatment. The SR-AR group received treatment in the reverse sequence. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured on 100-mm VAS, analyzed by two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparison as a post hoc test. The secondary outcome was patients' preference, evaluated by chi-square goodness-of-fit test. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS:Twenty-five subjects were enrolled in the analysis. There were no significant differences between AR and SR dentures 1, 2, and 3 months after the completion of control. Eighteen of 25 patients preferred SR dentures. CONCLUSION: Although there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction ratings between the two types of dentures, a significant majority of patients preferred those with a resilient denture liner.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure patients' satisfaction and their preference between mandibular dentures with permanent silicone-based resilient denture liner (SR) and conventional heat-activated acrylic resin (AR), both opposed by acrylic resin-based maxillary complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight edentulouspatients who had fulfilled selection criteria and provided informed consent were enrolled in this trial. Subjects were allocated randomly to either arm of cross-over groups (AR-SR/SR-AR), stratified by gender, using a random permuted block within the strata method. The AR-SR group received AR denture treatment followed by SR denture treatment. The SR-AR group received treatment in the reverse sequence. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured on 100-mm VAS, analyzed by two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparison as a post hoc test. The secondary outcome was patients' preference, evaluated by chi-square goodness-of-fit test. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects were enrolled in the analysis. There were no significant differences between AR and SR dentures 1, 2, and 3 months after the completion of control. Eighteen of 25 patients preferred SR dentures. CONCLUSION: Although there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction ratings between the two types of dentures, a significant majority of patients preferred those with a resilient denture liner.