A modified shark-fin test simulating the single-step/double-mix technique: A comparison of three groups of elastomers

Huettig, Fabian; Chekhani, Usama; Klink, Andrea; Said, Fadi; Rupp, Frank

doi:10.4012/dmj.2017-013

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PE forms have been found to possess the highest fins at 80 s. PVXE and PVS materials possess the second highest fin at 80 s. These findings align with the findings presented in this study [ 7 , 9 , 14 , 17 ]. This implies that PE may outperform subgingival structures and have an increased risk of cleft formations (as shown in Figure 1 ) due to its higher tendency to merge while flowing under pressure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…However, the test is limited to one time point per test. One may assume that this was why it has been frequently applied to compare flowability under a standardized weight [ 7 , 9 , 13 , 14 ]. However, the comparison of reported fin heights has been proven to be hindered by the test environment, such as slit width, testing time after initial mixing, room and material temperature, the mode of application (single vs. layered), and dimensions of the applied device itself [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The shark fin testing of the elastomers was facilitated as described by Huettig et al [ 9 ]. The testing device was set up for each elastomer and point in time ( Figure 3 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions

Huettig¹,

Klink²,

Köhler³

et al. 2021

Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates 2 polyethers (PE), 2 polyvinylsiloxanethers (VXSE), and 10 polyvinylsiloxanes (PVS), seven of which had a corresponding light-body consistency and seven of which had a corresponding heavy-body consistency. Each light-body elastomer underwent a flowability test using the shark fin method 20, 50, and 80 s after mixing. The tear strength test DIN 53504 was used after setting the time (T0). Next, 24 h later (T1), hydrophilicity testing was used with static contact angles in water drops during polymerization (20, 50, and 80 s, as well as after 10 min). The heavy-body elastomers underwent shark fin testing with a corresponding light-body material at 50 and 80 s after mixing. The results of light-body testing were combined in a score to describe their performance. The highest differences were detected within flowability in shark fin heights between PE and a PVS (means of 15.89 and 6.85 mm) within the maximum tear strengths at T0 between a PVS and PE (3.72 and 0.75 MPa), as well as within hydrophilicity during setting between VXSE and a PVS (15.09° and 75.5°). The results indicate that VSXE and novel PVS materials can significantly compensate shortcomings in PE towards tear strength and hydrophilicity, but not flowability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions

Huettig¹,

Klink²,

Köhler³

et al. 2021

Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study had developed a model that mimic an oral cavity conditions, unlike the shark fin test that represents only on the flowability of the impression materials. 29 The stainless steel which has 0.5 mm chamfer margin with slightly taper was an ideal tooth preparation for dental crown restoration and the agarose was a good representation of gingiva in moist condition. The patent number 75862 at the Department of Intellectual Property, Bangkok, Thailand was registered in 2020 for the model and was used in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials. Materials and Methods The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE. Conclusion Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.

show abstract

“…The shark fin test (SFT) can be used to examine the flowability of impression materials in vitro [9]. By forcing the material to pass through a predetermined triangular, V-shaped small slit in the pressing stamp, this technique permits imitating the flow of elastomers under defined pressure [10]. The resulting impression specimens resemble a shark fin (SF) shape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification of flowability and hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

Dudas,

Bardocz-Veres,

Metz

et al. 2023

Acta Stomatologica Marisiensis Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Flowability and hydrophilicity are essential properties of accurate impressions and casts. Aim of study: This study aimed to quantify these characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Material and Methods: A total number of eight impression materials, including vinyl polysiloxane (PVS), polyether (PE), and condensation silicone (CS) were thoroughly investigated in this study. The flowability of elastomers was proven with the shark fin test (SFT), and the hydrophilicity was determined with contact angle (CA) measurements. Results: The shark fins’ (SF) of VPSs presented 11.57 mm (SD 3.49), while the PE 11.37 mm (SD 5.06) and CS 8.1 mm average values. Some of the products showed better flowability. Based on 128 measured CAs, the examined polyethers had the lowest CAs which indicate good hydrophilicity. Conclusions: A good performance of an impression material in one of the involved tests (SFT and CA) does not mean a similar result in the other analysis. All investigated impression materials could be considered hydrophilic as their CA was lower than 90°. The SFTs of light-bodied VPSs and PEs suggest reliable use of them in dental practice.

show abstract

A modified shark-fin test simulating the single-step/double-mix technique: A comparison of three groups of elastomers

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions

Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

Quantification of flowability and hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About