Adhesive properties of periodontal dressings‐an in vitro study

Abstract

The adhesive properties of three periodontal dressing materials to hard and soft tissues were studied in vitro. The results indicated that adhesion occurred between the tissues and two of the materials. The third material did not adhere to any of the surfaces tested. Only small adhesive forces were recorded, but they may be of importance in establishing a tight seal between the dressings and the tissues.

Adhesive properties and leakage of root canal sealers in vitro

“…The lower value obtained by the latter authors may be explained by the higher cross-head speed (1 0 mm/minute) employed in their investigation. Haugen et al ( 1979) measured the tensile bond strength of a zinc oxide-eugenol based periodontal pack to dentine as 0.2MN/m2. This is higher than those for the zinc oxide-eugenol based products, Endom&hasone and N2 Normal, but clearly lower than for ProcoSol as recorded in our study.…”

Rheological aspects of non‐eugenol periodontal dressing materials

“…Peripac requires no mixing, but its elastic properties and solvent loss both present problems. They may well account for the known problem of adaptation in the mouth (Gjerdet & Haugen, 1977), and are also likely to be responsible for the poor level of adhesion to enamel shown by this material (Watts & Combe, 1980;Haugen et al, 1979).…”

“…Recent work in this field concerns such matters as dimensional change on setting (Gjerdet & Haugen, 1977) and adhesion (Watts & Combe, 1980;Haugen, Espevik & Mjor, 1979).…”

“…Whilst biological properties of periodontal dressing materials are understood in some measure, there is a distinct dearth of information on their physical and chemical aspects (Watts & Combe, 1979). Recent work in this field concerns such matters as dimensional change on setting (Gjerdet & Haugen, 1977) and adhesion (Watts & Combe, 1980;Haugen, Espevik & Mjor, 1979).…”

An estimation of the strength of attachment of subgingival calculus to extracted teeth

“…A subsequent study showed that, of three current dressings, Coe-Pak® had the best retention to enamel (approximately 0.3MN/m^ tetisile bond, and 0.5MN/m^ shear bond), and these were suggested as lower limits in the quest for a more retentive material (Watts & Combe 1980). A study with a different methodology (Haugen et al 1979) gave a similar result with regard to tensile bonding, and suggested that the presence of salivary pellicle might enhance the adhesive properties of Coe-Pak. In their 1980 study the present authors suggested a possible level of adhesion for future development of adhesive dressings, but at the time, no data were available on the maximum permissible level of retention, given the clinical need for removal of dressings after a short period of time.…”