Fahim Vohra1, Faisal Altokhais2, Abdulelah Bin Thafrah2, Khaled Alsaif2, Abdulaziz Alyahya2, Abdulaziz Alsahhaf1, Yasser F AlFawaz3, Khulud A Aali4, Tariq Abduljabbar1,5, Modhi Aldeeb1,5. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4. Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. Research Chair for Biological Research in Dental Health, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
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.
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.