Display options
Cite
Samra RK, Bhide SV. Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of impression materials from developing countries and developed countries after disinfection with different immersion disinfectant systems and ultraviolet chamber. Saudi Dent J. 2017;30(2):125-141doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005.
Samra, R. K., & Bhide, S. V. (2018). Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of impression materials from developing countries and developed countries after disinfection with different immersion disinfectant systems and ultraviolet chamber. The Saudi dental journal, 30(2), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005
Samra, Rupandeep Kaur, and Bhide, Shreenivas Vasant. "Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of impression materials from developing countries and developed countries after disinfection with different immersion disinfectant systems and ultraviolet chamber." The Saudi dental journal vol. 30,2 (2018): 125-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005
Samra RK, Bhide SV. Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of impression materials from developing countries and developed countries after disinfection with different immersion disinfectant systems and ultraviolet chamber. Saudi Dent J. 2018 Apr;30(2):125-141. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005. Epub 2017 Dec 13. PMID: 29628736; PMCID: PMC5884227.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Saudi Dent J. 2018 Apr;30(2):125-141. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005. Epub 2017 Dec 13.

Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of impression materials from developing countries and developed countries after disinfection with different immersion disinfectant systems and ultraviolet chamber.

The Saudi dental journal

Rupandeep Kaur Samra, Shreenivas Vasant Bhide

Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Himachal Dental College, Sundarnagar, Himachal Pradesh 175018, India.
  2. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth Dental College, Katraj, Dhanakawadi, Pune, India.

PMID: 29628736 PMCID: PMC5884227 DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.11.005

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: It was to analyse and compare the effect of different disinfectant systems on the dimensional stability of commonly used irreversible hydrocolloid and addition silicone impression materials from developing countries as compared to materials from developed countries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disinfectant systems used were glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite and ultraviolet chamber. The stability after disinfection of commonly used alginate and addition silicone of native origin (Algin-Gum & Ad-Sil) was compared with similar impression materials from developed countries (Vignette and Aquasil) and results compared. A CAD/CAM manufactured stainless steel die simulating maxilla with four metal studs at canine and molar region was used. Impressions were made and disinfected after rinsing and drying and casts poured. The cross arch distance, interabutment distance and the occluso-gingival length of the studs was measured under traveling microscope and observations were recorded and compared. ANOVA test and Bonferroni test was applied.

RESULTS: An increase in the interabutment and cross arch distance and decrease in occluso-gingival height was seen in the casts obtained. Glutaraldehyde immersion showed variation in the interabutment and cross arch distance for all materials studied. Ultraviolet chamber and sodium hypochlorite produced best results. Dimensional stability of impression materials like Vignette, Algin-Gum & Aquasil was found to within clinically acceptable limits after disinfection while maximum deviation was seen with Algin-Gum.

CONCLUSION: Evaluated materials can be safely disinfected with sodium hypochlorite and ultraviolet chamber. Addition silicone of native origin is at par with impression materials from developed countries but same cannot be said about alginate.

Keywords: Addition silicone; Alginate; Dimensional stability; Glutaraldehyde; Immersion systems; Sodium hypochlorite; Ultraviolet chamber

References

  1. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996 May;127(5):672-80 - PubMed
  2. J Prosthet Dent. 1976 Apr;35(4):407-15 - PubMed
  3. J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Apr;65(4):532-5 - PubMed
  4. ASDC J Dent Child. 1987 Jan-Feb;54(1):45-8 - PubMed
  5. J Prosthet Dent. 1970 Oct;24(4):377-86 - PubMed
  6. J Dent. 2004 Nov;32(8):603-9 - PubMed
  7. J Prosthet Dent. 1995 Jul;74(1):1-7 - PubMed
  8. Braz Oral Res. 2008 Oct-Dec;22(4):293-8 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2007 Mar;15(1):23-8 - PubMed
  10. J Dent Res. 1980 Jul;59(7):1152-5 - PubMed
  11. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Apr;79(4):446-53 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Oct;56(4):451-4 - PubMed
  13. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Aug;68(2):229-35 - PubMed
  14. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Feb;128(2):183-8 - PubMed
  15. J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Apr;65(4):519-25 - PubMed
  16. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Jul;76(1):8-14 - PubMed
  17. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986 Sep;113(3):419-22 - PubMed
  18. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1989 Feb;17(2):49-53 - PubMed
  19. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 May;67(5):583-9 - PubMed
  20. J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Dec;60(6):725-8 - PubMed
  21. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 May;61(5):527-31 - PubMed
  22. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Nov;70(5):449-56 - PubMed
  23. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Nov;58(5):650-4 - PubMed
  24. J Prosthodont. 2002 Jun;11(2):98-108 - PubMed
  25. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Sep;78(3):245-9 - PubMed
  26. J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Jul;64(1):25-31 - PubMed
  27. J Oral Rehabil. 1983 Jul;10 (4):325-33 - PubMed
  28. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 Jul;129(7):1014-21 - PubMed
  29. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Oct;76(4):356-62 - PubMed
  30. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977 Apr;94(4):733-41 - PubMed
  31. J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Oct;52(4):514-7 - PubMed
  32. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988 Apr;116(4):525-30 - PubMed

Publication Types