STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Many new products have been introduced and marketed as alternatives to traditional irreversible hydrocolloid materials. These alternative materials have the same structural formula as addition reaction silicone, also known as vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), impression materials. Currently, there is limited in vitro and in vivo research on these products, including on the effects of chemical disinfectants on the materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a spray disinfecting technique on a traditional irreversible hydrocolloid and 3 new alternative impression materials in vitro. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The tests were performed in accordance with the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) Specification Nos. 18 and 19. Under standardized conditions, 100 impressions were made of a ruled test block with an irreversible hydrocolloid and 3 alternative impression materials. Nondisinfected irreversible hydrocolloid was used as the control. The impressions were examined for surface detail reproduction before and after disinfection with a chloramine-T product. Type III and Type V dental stone casts were evaluated for linear dimensional change and gypsum compatibility. Comparisons of linear dimensional change were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA of mean ranks with the Scheffé post hoc comparisons (α=.05). Data for surface detail reproduction were analyzed with the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank procedure and gypsum compatibility with the Kruskal-Wallis Rank procedure (α=.05). RESULTS: The alternative impression materials demonstrated significantly better outcomes with all 3 parameters tested. Disinfection with chloroamine-T did not have any effect on the 3 alternative impression materials. The irreversible hydrocolloid groups produced the most variability in the measurements of linear dimensional change. All of the tested materials were within the ADA's acceptable limit of 1.0% for linear dimensional change, except for the disinfected irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative impression materials performed best for the parameters tested. Spray disinfection had no effect on the alternative impression materials.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Many new products have been introduced and marketed as alternatives to traditional irreversible hydrocolloid materials. These alternative materials have the same structural formula as addition reaction silicone, also known as vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), impression materials. Currently, there is limited in vitro and in vivo research on these products, including on the effects of chemical disinfectants on the materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a spray disinfecting technique on a traditional irreversible hydrocolloid and 3 new alternative impression materials in vitro. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The tests were performed in accordance with the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) Specification Nos. 18 and 19. Under standardized conditions, 100 impressions were made of a ruled test block with an irreversible hydrocolloid and 3 alternative impression materials. Nondisinfected irreversible hydrocolloid was used as the control. The impressions were examined for surface detail reproduction before and after disinfection with a chloramine-T product. Type III and Type V dental stone casts were evaluated for linear dimensional change and gypsum compatibility. Comparisons of linear dimensional change were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA of mean ranks with the Scheffé post hoc comparisons (α=.05). Data for surface detail reproduction were analyzed with the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank procedure and gypsum compatibility with the Kruskal-Wallis Rank procedure (α=.05). RESULTS: The alternative impression materials demonstrated significantly better outcomes with all 3 parameters tested. Disinfection with chloroamine-T did not have any effect on the 3 alternative impression materials. The irreversible hydrocolloid groups produced the most variability in the measurements of linear dimensional change. All of the tested materials were within the ADA's acceptable limit of 1.0% for linear dimensional change, except for the disinfected irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative impression materials performed best for the parameters tested. Spray disinfection had no effect on the alternative impression materials.
Authors: Yenumula J B Manikyamba; A V Rama Raju; M C Suresh Sajjan; P Arun Bhupathi; D Bheemalingeswara Rao; Jampana V V S N Raju Journal: J Indian Prosthodont Soc Date: 2020-07-17