Effects of sulfur-based hemostatic agents and gingival retraction cords handled with latex gloves on the polymerization of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study investigated the possible interactions between three addition silicone materials (Express®, Aquasil Ultra® and Adsil®), three hemostatic agents (ferric sulfate, StatGel FS®; aluminum sulfate, GelCord®; and aluminum chloride, Hemostop®) and gingival retraction cords previously handled with latex gloves to determine whether direct contact with medicaments or indirect contamination by latex in conditions similar to those found in clinical practice inhibit or affect the setting of the impression materials. Material and MethodsA portable device for the simultaneous test of several specimens was specifically developed for this study. Polymerization inhibition was analyzed by examination of the impressions and the molded surface. Ten trials were performed for each addition silicone material used in the study, at a total of 240 study samples. ResultsAll the samples tested (N=240) were nonreactive regardless of the type of combination used. ConclusionsAluminum sulfate, ferric sulfate and aluminum chloride hemostatic solutions did not show any inhibitory potential on the addition silicone samples under study, and there were no changes in polymerization as a result of contact between addition silicone and retraction cords handled with latex gloves.

Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study

“…Retardation on polymerization of impression materials after sulfur-based gingival retraction agents has been previously demonstrated. 9,15 Claims have been attributed to the effect of sulfur radicals. Although Expasyl does not contain sulfur, retardation has also been shown.…”

“…Other studies have reported a significant difference on the setting of PVS materials when contaminated with Expasyl and interim prosthodontic materials . However, there is also an alternative view with contradictory results . This suggests that in addition to variations in experimental methods, the effect may be material‐ and brand‐related …”

“…8 Several studies have investigated the effect of gingival displacement medicaments on the physical properties of impression materials. 1,5,6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Negative effects of ferric subsulfate, ferric sulfate, and aluminum chloride on the polymerization and tear strength of different types of final impression materials have been demonstrated. 9,12 This is possibly due to sulfur that delays or inhibits polymerization.…”

“…2,6 However, there is also an alternative view with contradictory results. [14][15][16][17] This suggests that in addition to variations in experimental methods, the effect may be material-and brand-related. 9 The retarding effect of the interim materials on polymerization was significantly reduced upon decontamination with 3% hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), which has been identified as an effective disinfection method for dental impression materials without adversely affecting their physical properties.…”

Comparison between aluminum chloride and tetryzoline hydrochloride for control of vertical gingival displacement and crevicular fluid

“…In spite of this, AlCl 3 used at concentrations of over 10% 6 may cause tissue destruction and permanent gingival recession of 0.1 mm 9 . According to Tarighi, Khoroushi 8 (2014), AlCl 3 may interact in the polymerization process of polyvinyl siloxane-based (addition silicone) materials, however, this fact has been refuted by some authors who claim that there is no such correlation 10 .…”