Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  12 (2024)
Volume  11 (2023)
Volume  10 (2022)
Volume  9 (2021)
Volume  8 (2020)
Volume  7 (2019)
Volume  6 (2018)
Volume  5 (2017)
Volume  4 (2016)
Volume  3 (2015)
Volume  2 (2014)
Volume  1 (2013)
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Stability of Elastomeric Impression Materials Subjected to Ultraviolet Irradiation and Spray Atomized Disinfection: An In Vitro Study

Deepthy S Sivan, Byju P Kurian, Babu Cherian, Blessenty Joy, Minu Raju, Anju S Raju

Keywords : 2.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, Condensation silicone, Disinfection, Elastomeric impression materials, Polyether, Polyvinyl siloxane, Spray atomization, UV irradiation

Citation Information : Sivan DS, Kurian BP, Cherian B, Joy B, Raju M, Raju AS. Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Stability of Elastomeric Impression Materials Subjected to Ultraviolet Irradiation and Spray Atomized Disinfection: An In Vitro Study. 2024; 12 (2):84-90.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0045

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 31-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: The study was done to compare and evaluate the linear dimensional stability of three elastomeric impression materials, namely polyether (PE), polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), and polydimethylsiloxane (PDS) after subjecting to ultraviolet (UV) irradiation and spray disinfection techniques. Methods and methodology: Three elastomeric impression materials namely PE (3M ESPE Impregum soft), PVS (Zhermack elite P And P), and PDS (Zhermack Oranwash L and its indurater) of light body consistency were used. Ultraviolet rays and 2.5% chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate (spray disinfection) were used as disinfectants. A master die was used to create 40 samples from each material. Three parallel lines of equal length were given in the die. A sample was accepted if two or three lines were reproduced continuously and were well-defined. A total of 120 samples were made and subjected to disinfection. Out of the 40 samples from each material, 20 samples were irradiated with UV light of approximately 200–280 nm for 20 minutes and the next 20 from each material were treated with spray atomized disinfection. The sample was sprayed and sealed in a plastic bag for 30 minutes. Measurements of the samples were done. Each line in the sample was evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. The average length of lines in each sample was compared to that in the die. The values obtained in the UV irradiation and spray disinfection were also compared. Results: A statistically significant difference was shown in the dimensional stability of all three elastomeric impression materials subjected to UV irradiation and spray disinfection when compared with that of the die. Polyether demonstrated a statistically significant difference when compared with UV and spray atomized samples whereas PVS and PDS showed dimensional change when compared with the die, but no statistically significant difference was found when samples treated with both the disinfection techniques were compared. Conclusion: Elastomeric impression materials of light body consistency had dimensional change when treated with UV irradiation for 20 minutes and spray atomization with 2.5% CHX gluconate. Clinical significance: Prevention of cross-contamination when handling impression materials without hampering their dimensional stability is mandatory to obtain a successful treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Gounder R, Vikas BVJ. Comparison of disinfectants by immersion and spray atomization techniques on the linear dimensional stability of different interocclusal recording materials: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2016;10(1):7. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684.
  2. Guidelines for disinfection and sterilisation 2008.
  3. AFFAIRS AC, PRACTICE AC. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(5):672–680. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0280.
  4. Aeran H, Sharma S, Kumar V, et al. Use of clinical chamber to disinfect dental impressions: A Comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(8):ZC67–ZC70. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14025.6353.
  5. Almortadi N, Chadwick RG. Disinfection of dental impressions – Compliance to accepted standards. Br Dent J 2010;209(12):607–611. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.1134.
  6. Suprono MS, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, et al. Effect of disinfection on irreversible hydrocolloid and alternative impression materials and the resultant gypsum casts. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108(4):250–258. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60173-5.
  7. Council on Dental Materials and Devices. Revised American Dental Association specification No. 19 for non-aqueous, elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94(4):733–741. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1977.0334.
  8. Samaranayake LP, Hunjan M, Jennings KJ. Carriage of oral flora on irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(2):244–249. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91) 90169-w.
  9. Polyzois GL, Zissis AJ, Yannikakis SA. The effect of glutaraldehyde and microwave disinfection on some properties of acrylic denture resin. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(2). PMID: 7575966.
  10. Maru K, Jain D, Maru R. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of polyvinyl siloxane impression material following disinfection with 2% glutaraldehyde and u.v. rays using three dimensional optical digitization. University. J Dent Scie 2017;2(3):7.
  11. Tuller JB, Commette JA, Moon PC. Linear dimensional changes in dental impressions after immersion in different solutions. J Prosthet Dent 1998;60(6):725–728. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90407-6.
  12. Katyayan PA, Kalavathy N, Katyayan M. Dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under different conditions. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(6):881–882. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94697.
  13. Walker MP, Rondeau M, Petrie C, et al. Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection. J Prosthodont 2007;16(5):343–351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00206.x.
  14. Da Silva SMLM, Salvador MCG. Effect of the disinfection technique on the linear dimensional stability of dental impression materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12(3):244–249. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-7757200400 0300016.
  15. Drennon DG, Johnson GH, Powell GL. The accuracy and efficacy of disinfection by spray atomization on elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(4):468–475. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89) 90183-2.
  16. Matyas J, Dao N, Caputo AA, et al. Effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(1):25–31. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90148-6.
  17. Keyf F. Some properties of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. JIAS 1994;7(1):44–48.
  18. Ivaniš T, Živko-Babić J, Lazić B, et al. Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials disinfected in a solution of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and alcohol. Acta stomatologica Croatica. 2000;34(1):11–14.
  19. Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Gul B, et al. Effect of disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression materials. J Prosthodont 2007;16(6):473–479. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00235.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.