Literature DB >> 33331323

[Effect of disinfectant with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients on the accuracy of dental impression].

D Xu, D H Wei, Y C Zhang, P DI, Y Lin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of disinfectant (Cavicide) with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients disinfectant on dental impression accuracy.
METHODS: The effect of Cavicide on three impression materials (alginate, polyether and vinylpolysiloxane) were assessed using a standard model. The standard model was digitized by an extraoral scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric). For each kind of impression materials, thirty impressions were taken following the manufactures' instruction in the same conditions. Subsequently, the impressions were randomly divided into three groups, with ten impressions in each group. After the impression taking was completed, the three groups underwent pure water rinse for 1 min (blank control, BC), 2% glutaraldehyde solution immersion disinfection for 30 min (glutaraldehyde, GD), and Cavicide solution spray disinfection for 5 min (Cavicide, CC), respectively. All the impressions were digitized by the extraoral scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric) after disinfection and exported to a dedicated three-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Qualify 2014, Geomagic, USA). In the software, the digital models of the impressions were trimmed to teeth and then superimposed with the digitized standard model via best-fit alignment. Root mean square (RMS) was used to evaluate the deviations between the impression and the standard model. The deviation in the anterior and posterior regions was evaluated respectively. One-way ANOVA test and the LSD post-hoc test were used to compare the deviations between the three groups (P < 0.05). The color map of each superimposition was saved for visual analysis.
RESULTS: For the polyether and vinylpolysiloxane materials, the difference between the three groups was not statistically significant (P=0.933, P=0.827). For the alginate material, the difference in posterior region between group GD and group BC, as well as group GD and group CC were statistically significant (GD vs. BC, P=0.001; GD vs. CC, P=0.002), while the difference between group BC and group CC was not statistically significant (P=0.854). The visual analysis showed an obvious deviation in the buccal-lingual direction in group GD.
CONCLUSION: Disinfectant (Cavicide) with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients using spray disinfection has no effect on the accuracy of the alginate, polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Dental impression; Disinfection; Three-dimensional

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33331323      PMCID: PMC7745263     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban        ISSN: 1671-167X


  9 in total

1.  Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression.

Authors:  R G Luthardt; R Loos; S Quaas
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.883

2.  The effect of a range of disinfectants on the dimensional accuracy and stability of some impression materials.

Authors:  D C Jagger; R W Vowles; L McNally; F Davis; D J O'Sullivan
Journal:  Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent       Date:  2007-03

3.  Dimensional accuracy of 2-stage putty-wash impressions: influence of impression trays and viscosity.

Authors:  Markus Balkenhol; Paul Ferger; Bernd Wöstmann
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.681

4.  Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.

Authors:  A Ender; A Mehl
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 1.883

5.  In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies.

Authors:  Pablo González de Villaumbrosia; Francisco Martínez-Rus; Ana García-Orejas; María Paz Salido; Guillermo Pradíes
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 3.426

6.  Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC).

Authors:  Lynne Sehulster; Raymond Y W Chinn
Journal:  MMWR Recomm Rep       Date:  2003-06-06

7.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.

Authors:  Sang J Lee; Rebecca A Betensky; Grace E Gianneschi; German O Gallucci
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 5.977

8.  Importance of disinfection time and procedure with different alginate impression products to reduce dimensional instability.

Authors:  M Ulgey; O Gorler; G Yesilyurt
Journal:  Niger J Clin Pract       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 0.968

Review 9.  Effect of chemical, microwave irradiation, steam autoclave, ultraviolet light radiation, ozone and electrolyzed oxidizing water disinfection on properties of impression materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis study.

Authors:  Sahar AlZain
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2019-12-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.