Comparison of the effect of different medicaments on surface reproduction of two commercially available Polyvinyl Siloxane impression materials - An Invitro Study

Abstract

Objective:To determine the effect of different retraction cord medicaments on surface detail reproduction of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials and compare this effect on any two brands of commercially available polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Material and methods: Four stainless steel dies were made according to ADA specification no.19. Three dies were treated with aluminium chloride (5%), ferric sulphate (13.3%) and epinephrine (0.1%) while the fourth one was left untreated to serve as control. Two impression materials (Dentsply and 3M ESPE) were used. Results: All the three medicaments adversely affected the surface detail reproduction of both the brands of the polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. These effects were statistically significant as compared to untreated control. The impressions of 3M ESPE brand have shown better surface detail reproduction as compared to Dentsply impression material. Conclusion: Surface detail reproduction of the polyvinyl siloxane impression materials is adversely affected by the retraction cord medicaments. The presence of moisture or any traces of the medicaments should be removed from the tooth surface to provide a dry field for the correct reproduction of the surface detail of these materials. Key words:Polyvinyl Siloxane, retraction cord medicaments, surface detail reproduction.

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

“…This is possibly due to sulfur that delays or inhibits polymerization . Moreover, these medicaments were found to adversely affect the surface detail reproduction of poly(vinyl siloxane) (PVS) impression materials . Other studies have reported a significant difference on the setting of PVS materials when contaminated with Expasyl and interim prosthodontic materials .…”

“…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.…”

The Setting Time of Polyether Impression Materials after Contact with Conventional and Experimental Gingival Margin Displacement Agents

“…The larger the displacement materials with chemical displacement agents for the gingival sulcus, the better they are able to reproduce fine detail. However, these chemicals can interact with elastomers’ impression materials …”

“…The effect of CDAs and EDAs on elastomer impression materials has not been completely elucidated. Several studies have shown that these chemical displacement agents change the physico‐chemical properties of different elastomer impression materials, including PVS, PE, and vinylsiloxanether (VSXE) . In contrast, some studies have reported that they have no effect on the PVS group …”

“…Piotrowski et al observed the surface texture of two PE specimens (Impregum Penta/Impregum Soft; 3M ESPE) evaluated by the profilometry method after contact with displacement agents as solutions and gels, and noted unsatisfactory impressions after exposure to 20% ferric sulfate gel (ViscoStat; Ultradent) and 25% aluminum chloride liquid (Racestyptine solution). Under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification, Singh et al showed that surface detail reproduction via PVS impression materials was adversely affected after contact with three medicaments (5% aluminum chloride, 13.3% ferric sulfate, 0.1% epinephrine) used for soaking cords.…”