Influence of chloramine-T disinfection on elastomeric impression stability

Guiraldo, Ricardo Danil; Berger, Sandrine Bittencourt; Punhagui, Marília Franco; Moretto, Thais Staut; Lopes, Murilo Baena; Júnior, Alcides Gonini; Sinhoreti, Mário Alexandre Coelho

doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_195_17

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 As a result of the characteristic of the material absorbing water, the impression should not immerse in water for a period of time as it could lead to swelling of the impression. 7 On the other hand, Guiraldo et al 8 founded that PE had good dimensional stability even immersed the material for 15 minutes under disinfectant. PE, by nature, has no by-product of setting reactions resulting in good dimensional stability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials. Materials and Methods The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE. Conclusion Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have assessed the dimensional changes by either measuring on full arch cast or in metal die manufactured in compliance with American Dental Association (ADA) Specification n. 19 (Abdelaziz et al, 2004;Melilli et al, 2008;Amin et al, 2009). Other studies have also directly evaluated it on impressions (Guiraldo et al, 2017;Guiraldo et al, 2018). Thus, the current study has evaluated the surface detail reproduction in impressions, in compliance with ISO 4823:2000 Specification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of expiration date on detail reproduction of dental elastomers

Guiraldo¹,

Harada²,

Berger³

et al. 2021

RSD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elastomers are synthetic rubber materials formed by polymers, which are joined by a small number of cross-links that form a three-dimensional network. The aim of the current study was to compare the surface detail reproduction of polyvinyl siloxane and polyether-based elastomeric impression materials (2 years after their expiration date) to the ones that have not exceeded this period-of-time. Four groups comprising 5 samples, each (n = 5), were divided based on material (polyvinyl siloxane – Express and polyether – Impregum Soft) and expiration date (expired, or not). The manipulated material was placed on a tray in a way to fully cover its inner part. Later on, it was placed on a metal matrix presenting 20-, 50- and 75-μm lines. Molds were removed after polymerization and surface detail reproduction was measured in comparator microscope (Stereozoom Microscope), along the 20 μm line (25 mm in length), at 4x-magnification, in compliance with ISO 4823. Surface detail reproduction values were subjected to descriptive analysis - results were expressed in percentage (%). All groups presented 100% of surface detail reproduction, regardless of impression material or expiration date. Surface detail reproduction of the investigated materials was not influenced by the evaluated elastomers’ expiration date.

show abstract

“…1 Vinylpoly siloxane (VPS) material is considered the material of choice along with polyethers (PEs) due to its excellent elastic recovery, working, and setting times, tear resistance, and marginal accuracy. [2][3][4] However, VPS is hydrophobic and its ability to wet the prepared tooth surface for accurate impressions is compromised by the presence of moisture and saliva. 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Influence of chloramine-T disinfection on elastomeric impression stability

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

Influence of expiration date on detail reproduction of dental elastomers

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About