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

Abstract

The novel surfactant Rhodasurf CET-2 in Exp-III and IV, is an effective surfactant, retaining a low CA after disinfection, compared with Igepal CO-530 in Aq M. Disinfecting VPS impression materials for more than 30min increases their surface CAs, and therefore prolonged disinfection periods should be avoided.

The effects of cross-linking agent and surfactant on the tear strength of novel vinyl polysiloxane impression materials

“…It is therefore assumed that cross-linking took place and hence contributed to a further increase in TS of experimental VPS impression materials. The current study is also supported by Ud Din et al, [31], who investigated contact angles of experimental VPS impression materials incorporating (Rhodasurf CET-2). Their results confirmed that Rhodasurf CET-2 was an effective surfactant since the impression materials retained low contact angles after immersion disinfection for 30 minutes and 24 hours, compared with commercial materials, in which case they increased.…”

“…On incorporating non-ionic surfactant, Rhodasurf CET-2, (ethoxylatedcetyl-oleylalcohol) in the experimental formulations resulted in a further significant increase in the materials TS and this was also concentration dependent. Ud Din et al, [31], used this surfactant in their VPS experimental formulations and reported that the ethoxylated-oleyl alcohol contains a double bond in its chemical structure, which presumably activates during the setting reaction. Thus this component contributed to a further increase in cross-linking and some of the materials physico-mechanical properties, including TS and % elongation at break.…”

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

“…One possible solution used by dental manufacturers is the incorporation of surfactants in PVS. To investigate this possibility, Ud Din et al 238 evaluated experimental PVS impression materials incorporating a novel nonionic surfactant, Rhodasurf CET-2 (ethoxylated cetyl-oleyl alcohol), and compared surface characteristics (contact angle [CA]) with those of commercial impression materials before and after disinfection.…”

Disposable plastic trays and their effect on polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impression accuracy—an in vitro study

“…Back to conventional impression-taking, the technique (one-step/two-step and monophase/dual-phase) can impact the outcome as well as disinfection measures applied to cured impressions [8,[14][15][16][17][18]. A major impact is also attributed to the type and design of the impression trays used.…”

“…To date, some hybrid materials such as silicones with hydrophilic properties are available on the market, which aim to combine the various advantages [ 5 , 8 ]. For the sake of completeness, digital impressions by use of intraorally three-dimensional scanners should also be mentioned which seem to be—regarding accuracy—comparable if used for the fabrication of single crowns [ 9 – 11 ], but are still disadvantageous to conventional impression-taking when it comes to long-span or full-arch restorations [ 9 ].…”