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

Abduljabbar, Tariq; Amri, Mohammad D. Al; Rifaiy, Mohammad Q. Al; Al-Sowygh, Zeyad H.; Vohra, Fahim; Balous, Moneeb A; Alqarni, Abdulaziz S.; Alotaibi, Abdulmajeed O

doi:10.1111/jopr.12641

Cited by 5 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…70% were aware of Expasyl paste which is used in retraction requires minimal time and force when compared to retraction cord. Abduljabbar and Al Baker found similar results to our study where he mentioned the impact of expasyl in gingival retraction paste on bond strength of self-etch and total-etch systems (Al Baker et al, 2015;Abduljabbar et al, 2019).66% were aware of Comprecap , livaditis in his study observed the same results of our study (livaditis, 1998).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Awareness On Recent Advances in Gingival Retraction Materials During Impression Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students - A Questionnaire Survey

Ovia¹

2020

Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this survey was to create an awareness on recent advances in gingival retraction materials during impression making. A set of 10 questionnaires were circulated among the undergraduate (UG) students of Saveetha Dental College which was done in an online forum Survey planet to avoid discussion and false results, thereby no bias is evidenced in this study. A response of 100 UG students was collected and datas were entered to an Excel sheet followed by statistical analysis done in SPSS by IBM. The statistical test used is Chi-square test. From the survey we obtained that 66% of the students who attended the survey were third year students, 11% final years and 23% were CRRI. 80% of them were aware of recent advances in gingival retraction materials during impression making, 77% were aware of retraction cord, 76% were aware of the disadvantage of retraction cord, 78% were aware of the time consumption of retraction cord, 69% were aware of gingifoam, 70% were aware of Expasyl paste, 66% of were aware of Comprecap, 69% were aware of magic foam, 59% of them use Comprecap, 75% of them were aware of the expense of advanced materials. There was a significant association between the awareness of recent advances in the gingival retraction materials and year of study (p<0.05). The study concluded that UG students were aware of the recent advances in gingival retraction materials used in impression making which should be used in their daily clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Awareness On Recent Advances in Gingival Retraction Materials During Impression Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students - A Questionnaire Survey

Ovia¹

2020

Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a clinical scenario, a minimum crevicular width of 0.2-0.3 mm is required to capture the preparation margins and the area beyond for durability of the impression recorded and the ability to remove and pour. 6,24 A known criterion for polymerization inhibition evaluation was employed, as its validity has been verified in multiple previous studies. 6,11,21,22 The three categories (Table 1) of un-polymerized impressions were presented to demonstrate the severity of polymerization inhibition; however, all three categories were considered inhibited impressions as they cannot be recommended as successful impressions clinically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,24 A known criterion for polymerization inhibition evaluation was employed, as its validity has been verified in multiple previous studies. 6,11,21,22 The three categories (Table 1) of un-polymerized impressions were presented to demonstrate the severity of polymerization inhibition; however, all three categories were considered inhibited impressions as they cannot be recommended as successful impressions clinically. To standardize impressions among the three evaluators, inter-and intra-examiner reliability was assessed using some pilot tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 A further limitation of these impression materials is their poor compatibility with other dental materials, including dental acrylate resins, composite resin, retraction and hemostatic agents, and latex. [6][7][8][9][10][11] Soft tissue retraction and hemostasis around prepared teeth is pivotal in capturing a durable and accurate impression. 5,12 It includes the placement of impregnated cords in the gingival crevice to physically displace and provide chemical hemostasis, allowing the impression material to flow freely in the gingival sulcus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent cleaning with 3% H 2 O 2 significantly reduced this inhibitory effect on polymerization. 6 Some recent introductions among retraction pastes materials are Retraction Capsule (RC3M) (3M,ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and Dryz (Parkell-Edgewood-USA), based on a variable quantity of aluminum chloride (15-30%) and fillers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of contemporary retraction agents and cleaning with hydrogen peroxide on the polymerization of elastomeric impression materials

Vohra

Altokhais

Thafrah

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study is to investigate the polymerization inhibition of elastomeric impression materials vinylpoly siloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE) when used in combination with retraction materials with and without subsequent cleaning with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Methods: Seven stainless steel specimens were fabricated. Four hundred and twenty impressions were made with three different elastomeric materials (140 each) as follows: group 1: VPS-Panasil; group 2: VPS-Express; group 3: PE-Monophase. Each material group was further subdivided into seven subgroups, based on use of no retraction material (control), three different retraction materials [Retraction capsule (RC3M), Dryz, Expasyl], and two cleaning techniques (water and H2O2). All subgroups included 20 impressions, which were made by a single operator using an automix gun. Evaluations were made using a visual scale by three calibrated examiners blindly and independently. Subjective categorization of the impressions were made as inhibited and uninhibited. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Inhibited impressions were lower than uninhibited impressions among VPS materials (Panasil and Express); Panasil and Express showed comparable ( p > 0.05) impression retardation. PE showed significantly higher inhibition compared to VPS materials ( p < 0.05). Expasyl showed significantly higher polymerization inhibition than other retraction materials ( p < 0.05). The use of H2O2 for cleaning showed significant reduction in polymerization inhibition than cleaning with water for Expasyl ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Overall contemporary retraction materials showed low potential for polymerization inhibition of elastomeric impression materials. Expasyl should be cleaned with H2O2 prior to impression making. However, Dryz and RC3M can show accurate impressions with water cleaning alone.

show abstract

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

Ercoli

Tarnow

Poggio

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To search the literature and to critically evaluate the findings on the periodontal outcomes of restorations and tooth‐supported fixed prostheses. Materials and Methods PubMed was searched according to a systematic methodology, previously reported, but updated to include a larger database. Filters applied were: Case reports, clinical trial, review, guideline, randomized controlled trial, meta‐analysis, systematic reviews, and English. A narrative review was then synthesized to discuss periodontal outcomes related to restorations and tooth‐supported fixed prostheses. Relevant data was organized into four sections: Direct restorations, indirect restorations, biologic width or supracrestal tissue attachment and tooth preparation/finish line design. Results While increased gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss have been associated with subgingival restorations, intracrevicular margins do not cause periodontal diseases. Inflammation and bone loss occur, for both direct and indirect restorations, only with large overhangs. Different restorative materials are associated with different clinical responses when placed in the gingival sulcus or within the epithelial and connective tissue attachments. When the connective tissue attachment is removed, histological changes occur causing its apical shift and subsequent re‐establishment. Gingival displacement during impression procedures can cause gingival recession. Emergence profile can have a range of values, not associated with periodontal diseases. Periodontal response appears to be clinically not different when compared among different finish line designs. Conclusions Contemporary procedures and materials used for the placement and fabrication of tooth‐supported restorations and fixed prostheses are compatible with periodontal health when adequate patient education and motivation in self‐performed oral hygiene are present. Periodontal diagnostic criteria should be thoroughly reviewed before fixed restorative treatments are planned and executed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Awareness On Recent Advances in Gingival Retraction Materials During Impression Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students - A Questionnaire Survey

Awareness On Recent Advances in Gingival Retraction Materials During Impression Making Among Undergraduate Dental Students - A Questionnaire Survey

Effect of contemporary retraction agents and cleaning with hydrogen peroxide on the polymerization of elastomeric impression materials

The Relationships Between Tooth‐Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Restorations and the Periodontium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About