Change of surface property of dental impression materials according to time and disinfection

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the hydrophilicity of dental impression materials. Two ultrahydrophilic (Fusion, Genie) and four hydrophilic (Imprint II, Aquasilultra, Twinz, Perfect-F) impression materials were used. Initially, 0.5% NaOCl and 1% povidone were used as disinfectants. In order to investigate the change of the surface wettability of impression materials according to the elapsed time after mixing, the contact angles were measured at 30 s and 2 min after mixing, respectively. Contact angles were also measured before and after disinfection. The contact angles of the ultrahydrophilic impression materials were lower at 2 min than at 30 s, whereas those of the hydrophilic impression materials showed the opposite result (p < 0.05). Fusion and Perfect-F had higher contact angles in the NaOCl-group and lower contact angles in the povidone-group than those of nondisinfection group (p < 0.05). The contact angles of Aquasilultra and Twinz in the povidone-group were higher than those in the nondisinfection group (p < 0.05). The elapsed time after mixing and disinfection of impression materials affected the contact angle of water on the surface of the impression materials. These results suggested that impression materials should only be used within the scope that their wettability is not degraded.

Experimental hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials incorporating a novel surfactant compared with commercial VPS

“…CAs were measured 10 seconds after placing the drop on each sample i) immediately after setting [3,5,6,26]; ii) after 30 minutes in disinfecting solution [26,38]; iii) after 24 hours disinfection [26], in order to compare the effect of the hydrophilic agent in the materials. Furthermore, one-way ANOVA was also used to test the null hypothesis that the contact angle of a droplet placed on the surface of all materials was unchanged following a 120 second dwell time.…”

Disinfection efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde and their effects on the dimensional stability and surface properties of dental impressions: a systematic review

“…Two studies did not pour dental stone into alginate impressions of control group immediately after impression making ( Guiraldo et al, 2012 ; Hamedi Rad, Ghaffari & Safavi, 2010 ), or three studies lay elastomeric impressions of control group for over 30 min after impression making ( Carvalhal et al, 2011 ; Lepe & Johnson, 1997 ; Nassar & Chow, 2015 ). A total of 23 studies didn’t measure the dimensions of impression or master cast before disinfection ( Abdelaziz, Hassan & Hodges, 2004 ; AlZain, 2019 ; Carvalhal et al, 2011 ; Drennon, Johnson & Powell, 1989 ; Hamedi Rad, Ghaffari & Safavi, 2010 ; Herrera & Merchant, 1986 ; Hiraguchi et al, 2012 ; Khatri et al, 2020 ; Khinnavar, Kumar & Nandeeshwar, 2015 ; Kim et al, 2008 ; Lad et al, 2015 ; Langenwalter, Aquilino & Turner, 1990 ; Lepe & Johnson, 1997 ; Lepe, Johnson & Berg, 1995 ; Lepe et al, 2002 ; Nimonkar et al, 2019 ; Queiroz et al, 2013 ; Rentzia et al, 2011 ; Rueggeberg et al, 1992 ; Saleh Saber, Abolfazli & Kohsoltani, 2010 ; Shambhu & Gujjari, 2010 ; Shetty, Kamat & Shetty, 2013 ; Silva & Salvador, 2004 ; Sinobad et al, 2014 ). A total of 11 studies did not report whether multiple measurements were carried out or not ( Abdelaziz, Hassan & Hodges, 2004 ; Carvalhal et al, 2011 ; Davis & Powers, 1994 ; Guiraldo et al, 2017 ; Guiraldo et al, 2012 ; Hamedi Rad, Ghaffari & Safavi, 2010 ; Khatri et al, 2020 ; Nassar & Chow, 2015 ; Nassar et al, 2017 ; Nimonkar et al, 2019 ; Shambhu & Gujjari, 2010 ).…”

“…The surface wettability of impressions was assessed in eight studies, by measuring the magnitude of the contact angle on the surface of impression before and after disinfection ( Abdelaziz, Hassan & Hodges, 2004 ; AlZain, 2019 ; Davis & Powers, 1994 ; Kim et al, 2008 ; Lad et al, 2015 ; Lepe, Johnson & Berg, 1995 ; Lepe et al, 2002 ; Shetty, Kamat & Shetty, 2013 ). Of the seven studies investigating polyether impressions, five studies reported that glutaraldehyde could not affect the wettability of the impression surfaces ( Abdelaziz, Hassan & Hodges, 2004 ; AlZain, 2019 ; Davis & Powers, 1994 ; Lad et al, 2015 ; Lepe, Johnson & Berg, 1995 ).…”

“…On the contrary, one study reported the 30-minute immersion of 2% glutaraldehyde solution significantly decreased the wettability of the impression surfaces ( Lepe et al, 2002 ), and another study reported that both sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde were possible to affect the wettability ( Shetty, Kamat & Shetty, 2013 ). As for addition silicone, four of seven studies demonstrated glutaraldehyde could significantly reduce the wettability ( Abdelaziz, Hassan & Hodges, 2004 ; Davis & Powers, 1994 ; Kim et al, 2008 ; Lepe et al, 2002 ), while one study reported that 0.5% glutaraldehyde improved the wettability of addition silicone impressions effectively ( AlZain, 2019 ). Besides, three studies reported that the wettability of impression surfaces could not be affected by glutaraldehyde and sodium hypochlorite ( AlZain, 2019 ; Lad et al, 2015 ; Lepe, Johnson & Berg, 1995 ).…”

Comparative Evaluation of Wettability at Various Stages of Working Time for Light Body and Medium Body Consistencies of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials

“…[ 5 6 ] Wettability of unset elastomeric impression material plays a significant role in establishing an intimate contact of material to the oral tissues to obtain a void-free impression. [ 2 7 8 ]…”