Evaluating of Soft Lining Materials on Looseness of the Patients Wearing Dentures and Obturators.
Abu Hena Helal Uddin Ahmed
,
Md Saiful Azam
,
Fatema Tuz Juhura
,
Muhammad Mahfuzur Rahman
,
SM Salahuddin Al Azad
,
Md. Nazrul Islam
Background: Soft liners are resilient, viscoelastic materials applied to the tissue surface of dentures or obturators to cushion occlusal forces, improve load distribution, and enhance patient comfort. They are particularly beneficial for patients with thin mucosa, resorbed ridges, or persistent denture discomfort by reducing tissue trauma and improving denture stability. This study aimed to compare denture looseness in patients using prostheses with and without soft liners. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, from January 2008 to December 2010. Sixty patients were equally allocated into two groups: Group A received soft-lined dentures/obturators (Molloplast-B), and Group B received conventional dentures/obturators. Standard clinical and laboratory procedures were followed for prosthesis fabrication. Patients were evaluated at baseline and followed up at 1, 3, and 5 weeks, and 5 months after insertion. Denture looseness was assessed at each follow-up and compared between the two groups. Results: At baseline, denture/obturator looseness was reported by 13.3% of patients in the soft-liner group and 6.7% in the conventional group, with no significant difference (p>0.05). During the follow-up period, complaints of looseness resolved completely in the soft-liner group, while the proportion of patients with looseness increased to 33.3% in the conventional group and persisted throughout the study. By the fifth month, the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p<0.05), indicating superior retention and stability of soft-lined dentures and obturators. Conclusion: Patients wearing soft-lined dentures and obturators experienced significantly less prosthesis looseness than those wearing conventional prostheses (p<0.05).