An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study

Background: Impressions are an integral part of prosthodontics. Elastomeric impression materials are the impressions materials of choice in fixed prosthodontics for its better surface detail reproduction. Out of the elastomers available, vinyl polysiloxane represents the state of art impression mate...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: C B Shanthana Lakshmi, B Umamaheswari, Achut R Devarhubli, Sushant Pai, Tejendra Nandakumar Wadambe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2018-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Dental Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijds.in/article.asp?issn=0976-4003;year=2018;volume=10;issue=1;spage=37;epage=41;aulast=Shanthana
id doaj-eff4d82967344d73aef440c0b6f56fbd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-eff4d82967344d73aef440c0b6f56fbd2020-11-25T00:03:49ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Dental Sciences0976-40032231-22932018-01-01101374110.4103/IJDS.IJDS_42_17An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro StudyC B Shanthana LakshmiB UmamaheswariAchut R DevarhubliSushant PaiTejendra Nandakumar WadambeBackground: Impressions are an integral part of prosthodontics. Elastomeric impression materials are the impressions materials of choice in fixed prosthodontics for its better surface detail reproduction. Out of the elastomers available, vinyl polysiloxane represents the state of art impression material in prosthodontics, but even these materials cannot give an accurate reproduction of the tissues if there is separation of impression materials from the tray which may results in a distorted impression leading to poor final restorations made from such impressions. Hence, tray adhesives need to be applied to the tray to obtain an accurate and consistent impression. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesive, by determining the tensile bond strength. Materials and Methods: Two acrylic discs were utilized to make one impression sample of 3 mm thickness. The dimension of each acrylic disc was 2 mm in thickness and 2 cm in diameter. Specimens were made using a standard stainless steel die of the above-mentioned dimensions. A total of 135 specimens were prepared which included 15 samples in each category of nine groups. The samples were subjected to tensile bond strength testing using the universal testing machine and the values were recorded. All the values were subjected for statistical analysis. Results: Impregum (3M) specimens had demonstrated the highest tensile bond strength value (51.60N). Statistical analysis was done using Tukey's post hoc test and one-way ANOVA. Highly Statistical significant results were evident in Impregum (3M) and Indentium, as the P = 0.00. Conclusion: In this study Impregum (3M), specimens had highest tensile bond strength values compared to the other Groups followed by Indentium.http://www.ijds.in/article.asp?issn=0976-4003;year=2018;volume=10;issue=1;spage=37;epage=41;aulast=ShanthanaAutopolymerizing resinhydrophilicvinyl siloxanether
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author C B Shanthana Lakshmi
B Umamaheswari
Achut R Devarhubli
Sushant Pai
Tejendra Nandakumar Wadambe
spellingShingle C B Shanthana Lakshmi
B Umamaheswari
Achut R Devarhubli
Sushant Pai
Tejendra Nandakumar Wadambe
An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
Indian Journal of Dental Sciences
Autopolymerizing resin
hydrophilic
vinyl siloxanether
author_facet C B Shanthana Lakshmi
B Umamaheswari
Achut R Devarhubli
Sushant Pai
Tejendra Nandakumar Wadambe
author_sort C B Shanthana Lakshmi
title An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
title_short An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
title_full An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
title_fullStr An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: An In vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesives: an in vitro study
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Indian Journal of Dental Sciences
issn 0976-4003
2231-2293
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Background: Impressions are an integral part of prosthodontics. Elastomeric impression materials are the impressions materials of choice in fixed prosthodontics for its better surface detail reproduction. Out of the elastomers available, vinyl polysiloxane represents the state of art impression material in prosthodontics, but even these materials cannot give an accurate reproduction of the tissues if there is separation of impression materials from the tray which may results in a distorted impression leading to poor final restorations made from such impressions. Hence, tray adhesives need to be applied to the tray to obtain an accurate and consistent impression. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the compatibility of three different impression materials to three different tray acrylic materials using tray adhesive, by determining the tensile bond strength. Materials and Methods: Two acrylic discs were utilized to make one impression sample of 3 mm thickness. The dimension of each acrylic disc was 2 mm in thickness and 2 cm in diameter. Specimens were made using a standard stainless steel die of the above-mentioned dimensions. A total of 135 specimens were prepared which included 15 samples in each category of nine groups. The samples were subjected to tensile bond strength testing using the universal testing machine and the values were recorded. All the values were subjected for statistical analysis. Results: Impregum (3M) specimens had demonstrated the highest tensile bond strength value (51.60N). Statistical analysis was done using Tukey's post hoc test and one-way ANOVA. Highly Statistical significant results were evident in Impregum (3M) and Indentium, as the P = 0.00. Conclusion: In this study Impregum (3M), specimens had highest tensile bond strength values compared to the other Groups followed by Indentium.
topic Autopolymerizing resin
hydrophilic
vinyl siloxanether
url http://www.ijds.in/article.asp?issn=0976-4003;year=2018;volume=10;issue=1;spage=37;epage=41;aulast=Shanthana
work_keys_str_mv AT cbshanthanalakshmi anevaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT bumamaheswari anevaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT achutrdevarhubli anevaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT sushantpai anevaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT tejendranandakumarwadambe anevaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT cbshanthanalakshmi evaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT bumamaheswari evaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT achutrdevarhubli evaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT sushantpai evaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
AT tejendranandakumarwadambe evaluationofcompatibilityofthreedifferentimpressionmaterialstothreedifferenttrayacrylicmaterialsusingtrayadhesivesaninvitrostudy
_version_ 1725431866039730176