Drying time of tray adhesive for adequate tensile bond strength between polyvinylsiloxane impression and tray resin material

Yi, Myong-Hee,Shim, Joon-Sung,Lee, Keun-Woo,Chung, Moon-Kyu 대한치과보철학회 2009 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.1 No.2

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Use of custom tray and tray adhesive is clinically recommended for elastomeric impression material. However there is not clear mention of drying time of tray adhesive in achieving appropriate bonding strength of tray material and impression material. PURPOSE. This study is to investigate an appropriate drying time of tray adhesives by evaluating tensile bonding strength between two types of polyvinylsiloxane impression materials and resin tray, according to various drying time intervals of tray adhesives, and with different manufacturing company combination of impression material and tray adhesive. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Adhesives used in this study were Silfix (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and VPS Tray Adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and impression materials were Aquasil Ultra (monophase regular set, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and Imprint Ⅱ Gai-ant (regular body, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). They were used combinations from the same manufacture and exchanged combinations of the two. The drying time was designed to air dry, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. Total 240 of test specimens were prepared by auto-polymerizing tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Ⅱ, USA) with 10 specimens in each group. The specimens were placed in the Universal Testing machine(Instron, model 3366, Instron Corp, University avenue, Nowood, MA, USA) to perform the tensile test (cross head speed 5 mm/min). The statistically efficient drying time was evaluated through ANOVA and Scheffe test. All the tests were performed at 95% confidence level. RESULTS. The results revealed that at least 10 minutes is needed for Silfix-Aquasil, and 15 minutes for VPS Tray Adhesive-lmprint Ⅱ, to attain an appropriate tensile bonding strength. VPS Tray Adhesive-lmprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength when compared to Silfix-Aquasil over 15 minutes. Silfix-Aquasil had a superior bonding strength to VPS Tray Adhesive-Aquasil, and VPS Tray Adhesive-lmprint Ⅱ had a superior tensile bonding strength to Silfix-lmprint Ⅱ at all drying periods. CONCLUSION. Significant increase in tensile bonding strength with Silfix-Aquasil and VPS Tray adhesive-Imprint Ⅱ combination until 10 and 15 minutes respectively. Tray adhesive-impression material combination from the same company presented higher tensile bonding strength at all drying time intervals than when using tray adhesive-impression material of different manufactures.

TENSILE BOND STRENGTH BETWEEN ELASTOMERIC IMPRESSION MATERIALS AND TRAY RESINS DEPENDING ON THE THICKNESS OF THE TRAY ADHESIVE

Kim, Tae-Won,Moon, Hong-Seok,Lee, Keun-Woo,Chung, Moon-Kyu The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics 2006 대한치과보철학회지 Vol.44 No.6

Statement of problem. Elastomeric impression materials have been widely used to obtain an accurate impression. However there have not been enough studies on the influence of the thickness of the tray adhesives on the bonding strength between the trays and the elastomeric impression materials. Purpose. In order to understand the relationship between the thickness of the tray adhesive and the tensile bond strength and to suggest the thickness at which the bonding strength is strongest, tensile bond strength related to the thickness of adhesives of 3 different elastomeric impression materials were tested. Materials and methods. 3 impression materials, $Permlastic^{(R)}$. Regular Set(Kerr Corp., Romulus, Michigan, U.S.A.), $Impregum^{TM}$ $Penta^{TM}$(3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and Aquasil Ultra Monophase Regular Set Smart Wetting.(Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Delaware, U.S.A.), were used in this study, and tray adhesives from the same manufacturers of the impression materials were used, which were Rubber Base Adhesive, Polyether Adhesive, and Silfix, respectively. The tray specimens were prepared by autopolymerizing the tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Illinois, U.S.A.), and a PVC pipe was used to house the impression material. In group A, tray adhesives were applied in multiple thin layers of 1 to 5 and in group B, adhesives were applied only once, in the thickness equivalent to several applications. Lightness($L^*$) of the adhesion surface was measured with a spectrophotometer(CM-3500d, Konica Minolta, Sakai, Osaka, Japan). The tensile bond strength of the elastomeric impression material and the tray resin was measured with universal materials testing machines(Instron, Model 3366, Instron Corp, Nowood, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). A formula between the number of adhesive application layers and the lightness of the adhesion surface was deduced in group A, and the number of adhesive layers in group B was estimated by applying the lightness($L^*$) to the deduced formula. Results. 1. In group A, a statistically significant increase in tensile bond strength appeared when the number of application layers increased from 1 to 2 and from 4 to 5, and no significant difference was present between 2, 3, and 4 layers in Permlastic. In Impregum, the tensile bond strength was significantly increased when the number of adhesive layers increased from 1 to 3, but no significant difference after 3 layers. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength significantly increased as the number of application layers increased up to 4 but showed no significant difference between 4 and 5. 2. In group B, the tensile bond strength was decreased when the thickness of the adhesive increased in Permlastic. Impregum showed an increased tensile bond strength when the thickness of the adhesive was increased. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength increased as the number of adhesive application layers increased up to approximately 2.5 layers but it sharply decreased after approximately 4.5. Conclusion. From the study, the common idea that it is better to apply a thin and single coat of tray adhesive needs correction in more detailed ways, and instructions on some of the tray adhesives should be reconsidered since there were several cases in which the tensile bond strength increased according to the increase in the thickness of the adhesives.

알지네이트 인상재의 혼합방법과 트레이 어드헤시브 도포에 따른 모형의 정확도 비교

김진형,정문규,Kim Jin-Hyung,Chung Moon-Kyu 대한치과보철학회 2001 대한치과보철학회지 Vol.39 No.5

The use of alginate impression materials today is prevalent because of its efficiency and simplicity in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the procedure tends to lull the dentist into a sense of well-being, and lead him into using careless or sloppy technique. Alginate impression materials are used to fabricate diagnostic and preliminary casts, and the final cast. Incorrect use of this material is known to affect the accuracy of the final prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different mixing methods of alginate impression material and tray adhesive on the accuracy of the stone cast produced by each method. A total of 30 stone casts were produced by using 3 different types of mixing methods (10 stone cast for each mixing method, respectively). The first method utilized an automatic-mixing machine to mix alginate while the second method was carried out manually, strictly following manufacturer's instructions. The third method also involved manual mixing, but did not follow the manufacturer's instructions and was done in a random fashion. Also, 20 additional stone casts were produced by using alginate with or without tray adhesives were included in the study to evaluate effects of tray adhesives on the accuracy of alginate impression. 10 stone casts were produced by adding tray adhesives to the interior surface of the impression tray prior to taking the impression. The other 10 excluded this step. A total of 50 stone casts were analyzed by the three-dimensional measuring machine to measure and compare the dimensional changes of the impression material of each group. The results are as follows. 1. No significant difference was found between the automatic mixing group and the manually-mixing group(p>0.05). 2. For the group that followed manufacturer's instructions, less dimensional changes were record ed than the group that didn't in measuring distanced 4(p<0.05). 3. The group that used tray adhesives showed less dimensional changes(p<0.05). The findings revealed that mechanical methods of mixing alginate impression materials had little influence on dimensional changes. However, it is proven that following manufacturers instructions in alginate impression taking is an important step in acquiring accurate impressions and tray adhesives may play an important role in enhancing the results.