DENTAL TECHNOLOGY Kenneth D.

Rudd

A simple procedure for easy and safe deflasking

Majid Bissasu, DDS, PhDa
School of Dentistry, Al Baas University, Homs, Syria
When the dough-molding method is used for processing a trial denture, it is often difficult to remove
the processed denture from the flasking stone. The palatal and lingual stone portions contribute to this
difficulty. This article describes a procedure that uses metal aluminum plates to facilitate the removal
of these stone portions. The plates are placed vertically at the midline and in the palatal and lingual
stone mixtures during flasking. The plates, which are removed during deflasking, make deep grooves
and allow the stone portions to be pried toward the midline without considerable force during deflask-
ing. The procedure is easy, facilitates the deflasking procedure, reduces the danger of damaging the
denture base and the artificial teeth, and saves time. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:501-5.)

T he material most often used in making denture

bases is polymethyl methacrylate, commonly called
acrylic resin.1 There are numerous processing tech-
niques for fabricating acrylic resin denture bases,2,3 the
most common of which is the dough-molding
method.3 Removal of the completely polymerized den-
ture from the flask can be difficult, and the palatal and
lingual artificial stone may contribute significantly to
this difficulty. This difficulty may also be caused by con-
cavities of the lingual surface of the mandibular den-
ture, lingual inclination of the crowns of the mandibu-
lar posterior teeth, lingual protective curvatures of the
maxillary and mandibular crowns of the posterior teeth,
adherence of the artificial stone to the lingual surfaces
of the artificial teeth, or interproximal spaces. Further-
more, attempts to pry the palatal and the lingual stone
portions during deflasking could result in fine cracks,
denture base fracture, or deformation.
To simplify the removal of these stone portions and
to reduce the potential for fracturing the denture base Fig. 1. Aluminum plates. A, Maxillary plates. B, Mandibular
during deflasking, some investigators recommend mak- plates.
ing the top half of the stone molds in sections in the
upper half of the flask during flasking and making saw
cuts along the midline during deflasking.1-4 This pro-
cedure is helpful; however, it requires extra steps dur- shaped like parallelograms, were cut from approxi-
ing flasking. Moreover, the saw may damage the artifi- mately 1 mm thick aluminum sheet for the maxillary
cial teeth or the denture base. Others5,6 recommended denture. Another set of plates were cut for the
removing the stone from the palatal and lingual areas of mandibular denture (Fig. 1). All plates were cut with
the denture by first relieving the stone adjacent to the equal angles; the wider angles were approximately
lingual surface of the artificial teeth with a knife. This 110 degrees. In Figure 1, A and B, the sheets on the
procedure is difficult, may damage the artificial teeth, right had the same base of approximately 52 mm, and
and is time-consuming. the sheets on the left had the same base of approxi-
The purpose of this article is to present a simple mately 49 mm. Also, the sheets on the top had a
flasking method that provides easy and safe removal of height of approximately 25 mm; the sheets on the
polymerized denture bases from flasking stone. bottom had a height of approximately 21 mm. The
left edge of the plates were made so they conformed
PROCEDURES
to the inner surface of the posterior wall of the top
To demonstrate this procedure, 4 aluminum plates, flask. The right and top edges conformed to the lin-
gual surfaces of maxillary and mandibular denture
aInstructor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics. bases and artificial teeth (Fig. 1).

OCTOBER 1998 THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 501

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY BISSASU

Fig. 2. Waxed dentures and aluminum plates placed in flask to check height of artificial teeth
and aluminum plates. A, Maxillary denture; B, mandibular denture.

Fig. 3. Aluminum plates placed in stone mixture. A, Maxillary denture; B, mandibular den-
ture.

Fig. 4. Top portion of stone molds removed and metal plates exposed. A, Maxillary denture.
B, Mandibular denture.

502 VOLUME 80 NUMBER 4

BISSASU
Fig. 5. Lingual stone portions loosened towards groove by plaster knife. A, Maxillary denture;
B, mandibular denture.
Fig. 6. Upper (A) and lower (B) halves of stone portions removed.
Flasking
1. Check the height of the denture teeth in the flask
so that approximately 4 to 6 mm of space is avail-
able between the teeth and the top of the flask.
2. Fix the trial denture in the bottom half of the flask
with artificial stone.
3. Paint all of the stone surface in the lower half of
the flask with a separating medium.
4. With the upper half in the flask in position, check
the height of the metal plates. Position the plate
vertically in the palatal or lingual space of the trial
dentures at midline (Fig. 2). The upper edge of the
metal plate should be approximately 2 mm above
the occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth and
incisal edges of the anterior teeth, and 2 mm below
the top of the flask.
5. Pour a thin mix of artificial stone up to the incisal
OCTOBER 1998
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
edges of the anterior teeth and the tips of the cusps
of the posterior teeth.
6. Lubricate the metal plates with petroleum jelly to
facilitate their removal and place them into a verti-
cal position at midline, while the artificial stone is
still soft (Fig. 3). Ensure that the posterior edge of
the metal plates is in contact with the inner surface
of the flask. This will facilitate removal of the metal
plates and prying of the lingual and palatal artificial
stone.
7. Paint the stone surface with a separating medium
and then pour the stone onto the surface filling the
flask. Place the lid of the flask in position.
8. Allow the stone to set, eliminate the wax, and iso-
late the stone.
9. Fill the mold space with the resin denture base
material and process the denture in the conven-
tional manner.
503
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Fig. 7. Upper (A) and lower (B) stone portions removed completely from lingual surfaces of
dentures.
Fig. 8. Processed maxillary (A) and mandibular (B) dentures after complete deflasking.
Deflasking
1. Remove all parts of the flask from the stone mold
that contains the processed denture. Do not sepa-
rate the top part from the bottom of the mold.
2. Pry away the top portion, the last pour of stone
from the mold, with a plaster knife (Fig. 4), and
remove the metal plates from the stone. (This will
leave a groove in the stone.)
3. With the plaster knife, cut the stone adjacent to the
lingual surface of the maxillary tuberosity and
retromolar pad, then pry the stone sections toward
the groove and remove them (Figs. 5 through 7).
4. Separate the other parts of the stone from the buc-
cal and labial surfaces of the denture (Fig. 8).
504
BISSASU
SUMMARY
This procedure is easy and helps to facilitate the
removal of the palatal and lingual portions of flasking
stone. Thus, it reduces the hazards of denture base
fracture or deformation during deflasking of the
processed denture. An additional advantage of this pro-
cedure is that it reduces both the flasking and deflask-
ing time.
REFERENCES
1. Hickey JC, Zarb GA, Bolender CL. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous
patients. 9th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1985. p. 458-73.
2. Craig RG, Restorative dental materials. 8th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1989.
p. 509-59.
VOLUME 80 NUMBER 4
BISSASU THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

3. Phillips RW. Science of dental materials. 9th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saun- Copyright © 1998 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
ders; 1991. p. 177-213. Dentistry.
4. Javid NS, Boucher CO. Flasking for easy deflasking. J Prosthet Dent 0022-3913/98/$5.00 + 0. 10/1/91643
1973;29:581-5.
5. Morrow RM, Rudd KD, Eissman HF. Dental laboratory procedures: com-
plete dentures. Vol. 1. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1980. p. 284-304.
6. Rahn AO, Heartwell CM Jr. Textbook of complete dentures. 5th ed.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1993. p. 373-86.

Reprint requests to:

DR. MAJID BISSASU
PO BOX 768
HOMS
SYRIA

Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported

Noteworthy Abstracts fixed partial prostheses.
of the Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
Current Literature 1998;13:204-11.

Purpose. Endosseous implants to support prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws
was developed from the successful application of implant support for prostheses in completely
edentulous jaws. However, it is recognized that the partial edentulous condition is distinctly dif-
ferent from the complete edentulous condition. Microbiologic environment, occlusion, ridge
contour, and mechanical factors differ in these 2 edentulous states. This article documented treat-
ment outcomes when implants were used to support prostheses in partially edentulous jaws.
Material and methods. The first 88 patients with a total of 97 partially edentulous spans treat-
ed at the University of Toronto Implant Prosthodontic Unit were documented. Inclusion and
exclusion criteria were described. Changes in proposed treatment, due to the use of implants for
orthodontic treatment, the loss of implants, or the decision to treat with implant-supported
removable prostheses, resulted in the removal of 11 patients (13 edentulous areas) from the study.
The demographic data of the remaining 77 patients is described. All the 230 Brånemark implants
(Nobel Biocare AB) were placed and surgically uncovered as a 2-stage procedure. Implants were
categorized as anterior (zone 1) or posterior (zone 2) relative to the position of the premolar
teeth. All prostheses were fabricated by staff (n = 39) or supervised residents (n = 58). Success
criteria follow literature standards.
Results. A total of 15 patients experienced complications between stage 1 and stage 2 surgery
with 11 implant dehiscences, 1 persistent mucosal inflammation, 1 altered nerve sensation, and 2
implant losses. After prosthesis placement, 15 documented cases of mucosal inflammation were
noted for 9 prostheses, 9 prostheses had abutment screw complications (10 abutment screw frac-
tures in 4 prostheses and 10 abutment screws loosened in 7 prostheses), and 15 prostheses expe-
rienced prosthesis screw loosening. Prosthetic complications occurred in 25 prostheses with 23
incidents of acrylic resin fracture and 2 prostheses that were remade as a result of inadequate fit.
Prosthesis replacement occurred 21 times, in 6 of these situations the replacement was due to
implant failure and the remaining prostheses were replaced to improve esthetics after the intro-
duction of new prosthetic components. Of the 230 implants that were placed, 14 were lost. Of
the 14 lost, 11 of these were replaced, 3 were put to sleep, and 3 were used to support remov-
able prostheses. The Kaplan-Meier cumulative implant survival rate was 92.5% with a mean sur-
vival time of 11.34 years.
Discussion. Complications in implant-supported fixed prostheses seem to cluster in a small num-
ber of prostheses rather than being evenly distributed throughout all prostheses. Implant loss
occurred before prosthesis insertion 50% of the time. Implant failure rate was not correlated with
anatomic location. Implant survival in this study was comparable to survival rates described in
other studies. 24 References. —SE ECKERT

OCTOBER 1998 505