OBJECTIVES: This study aims to highlight the problems associated with impacted acrylic dentures and proffers advice to check them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases of impacted acrylic dentures over a 16-year period. RESULTS: Twenty-two adults had impacted esophageal acrylic dentures of which 16 (72.7%) and six (27.3%) were males and females, respectively (M:F ratio = 2.7:1) with age range 23-77 years. Fourteen patients (63.6%) had worn their dentures for more than 10 years without check-up, and 54.5% presented within 48 hours of impaction. The common symptoms in all the patients were difficulty with swallowing, throat pain and discomfort, followed by tenderness in the neck in 15 (68.2%). Dentures were extracted through esophagoscopy (17 cases) and cervical (three cases) esophagotomy, respectively. Observed complications included pulmonary edema in one and esophageal perforation in five patients. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic extraction of dentures carries a high risk of perforation. Extraction of an impacted denture via esophagoscopy can be undertaken under direct vision and in an ideal situation with judicious use of the Shears forceps. In the absence of these, the safest option is an esophagotomy. Proper treatment planning in the fabrication of dentures with incorporation of radiopaque materials in the dental resins and adequate postdenture delivery instructions are necessary as preventive measures.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to highlight the problems associated with impacted acrylic dentures and proffers advice to check them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases of impacted acrylic dentures over a 16-year period. RESULTS: Twenty-two adults had impacted esophageal acrylic dentures of which 16 (72.7%) and six (27.3%) were males and females, respectively (M:F ratio = 2.7:1) with age range 23-77 years. Fourteen patients (63.6%) had worn their dentures for more than 10 years without check-up, and 54.5% presented within 48 hours of impaction. The common symptoms in all the patients were difficulty with swallowing, throat pain and discomfort, followed by tenderness in the neck in 15 (68.2%). Dentures were extracted through esophagoscopy (17 cases) and cervical (three cases) esophagotomy, respectively. Observed complications included pulmonary edema in one and esophageal perforation in five patients. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic extraction of dentures carries a high risk of perforation. Extraction of an impacted denture via esophagoscopy can be undertaken under direct vision and in an ideal situation with judicious use of the Shears forceps. In the absence of these, the safest option is an esophagotomy. Proper treatment planning in the fabrication of dentures with incorporation of radiopaque materials in the dental resins and adequate postdenture delivery instructions are necessary as preventive measures.