Display options
Cite
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):7-15doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684.
Gounder, R., & Vikas, B. V. J. (2016). Comparison of disinfectants by immersion and spray atomization techniques on the linear dimensional stability of different interocclusal recording materials: An in vitro study. European journal of dentistry, 10(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.175684
Gounder, Revathy, and Vikas, B V J. "Comparison of disinfectants by immersion and spray atomization techniques on the linear dimensional stability of different interocclusal recording materials: An in vitro study." European journal of dentistry vol. 10,1 (2016): 7-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.175684
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 Jan-Mar;10(1):7-15. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684. PMID: 27011733; PMCID: PMC4784158.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Eur J Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):7-15. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684.

Comparison of disinfectants by immersion and spray atomization techniques on the linear dimensional stability of different interocclusal recording materials: An in vitro study.

European journal of dentistry

Revathy Gounder, B V J Vikas

Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
  2. Department of Prosthodontics, Ex-Professor of Army College of Dental Sciences, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.

PMID: 27011733 PMCID: PMC4784158 DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effect of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1% sodium hypochlorite, and 2% glutaraldehyde by immersion and spray atomization technique on the linear dimensional stability of Jet bite, Aluwax and Ramitec interocclusal recording materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three representative materials: Jet bite (addition silicone), Aluwax and Ramitec (polyether) were mixed according to manufacturer's instructions and then specimens were prepared according to the specifications of ISO 4823. All the specimens except the control (distilled water) were treated with disinfectant solutions (0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1% sodium hypochlorite, and 2% glutaraldehyde) for 30 and 60 min (n = 10) by spray and immersion technique. Once removed from the solutions, the test samples were washed in water for 15 s, dried and measured after 24 h 3 times using a measuring microscope with an accuracy of 0.0001 mm. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test with significance level of 5% were used to assess the statistical data (α = 0.05).

RESULT: All groups showed no significant difference statistically, in linear dimension when disinfected for 30 min by spray or immersion technique. Polyether had significantly higher dimensional variation when immersed in sodium hypochlorite for 60 min. Addition silicone showed the least dimensional change which ranged from 0.024% to 0.05%, followed by polyether from 0.004% to 0.171% and Aluwax from 0.146% to 0.228%.

CONCLUSION: To preserve the dimensions and surface of the recording materials and effective microbial elimination, restrictions should be applied in the method of disinfection and time duration. However, using the disinfectants either by spray or immersion technique, the dimensional change was <0.5% which was not clinically significant according to the American Dental Association specification no. 19 criteria within the first 24 h.

Keywords: Addition silicone; Aluwax; bite registration materials; dimensional stability; disinfection; interocclusal recording materials; polyether

References

  1. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004 Sep;12(3):244-9 - PubMed
  2. Dent Clin North Am. 2007 Jul;51(3):629-42, vi - PubMed
  3. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2011 Mar;11(1):26-31 - PubMed
  4. Shika Zairyo Kikai. 1989 Sep;8(5):701-5 - PubMed
  5. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 May;67(5):628-31 - PubMed
  6. Head Face Med. 2012 Oct 05;8:27 - PubMed
  7. Nig Q J Hosp Med. 2007 Apr-Jun;17(2):69-73 - PubMed
  8. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Aug;148(2):245-52 - PubMed
  9. Dent Mater. 2002 Mar;18(2):103-10 - PubMed
  10. J Dent Res. 1980 Jul;59(7):1152-5 - PubMed
  11. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Sep;50(3):327-31 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004 Dec;12 (4):154-60 - PubMed
  13. J Int Oral Health. 2015 Sep;7(9):22-4 - PubMed
  14. J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Dec;60(6):725-8 - PubMed
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 1977 Feb;37(2):164-72 - PubMed
  16. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Jan;12(1):147-79 - PubMed
  17. J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Jul;64(1):25-31 - PubMed
  18. Oper Dent. 2013 May-Jun;38(3):309-15 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Dent. 2013 Sep;7(Suppl 1):S54-9 - PubMed
  20. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977 Apr;94(4):733-41 - PubMed
  21. J Prosthet Dent. 1971 Feb;25(3):189-96 - PubMed
  22. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Oct;62(4):468-75 - PubMed

Publication Types