Glen H. Johnson

Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Because irreversible hydrocolloid impressions imbibe blood and saliva, immersion rather than spray disinfection may be more effective. Polyether has been shown to be dimensionally sensitive to immersion disinfection. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to determine whether irreversible hydrocolloid and polyether impressions could be disinfected by immersion without sacrificing accuracy and surface quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS Impressions were made of a master mandibular arch containing a crown preparation. Changes between the master and working casts were assessed. Irreversible hydrocolloids (Jeltrate; Palgaflex), a polyether (Impregum F), and an addition silicone (President) were used. Disinfectants were an iodophor (Biocide), a glyoxal glutaraldehyde (Impresept de), and a phenol glutaraldehyde (Sporicidin). The control was without disinfection. Casts were formed in Type IV gypsum. The roughness of working dies was also recorded and an analysis of variance was used for statistical evaluation. Results. Casts from disinfected irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions maintained accuracy for anteroposterior and cross arch dimensions where differences from the master was less than 0.1%. Buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions of working dies (disinfected and control) were 6 to 8 microm larger than the master for addition silicones and 11 to 16 pm for polyethers. The occlusogingival dimension of dies for control and disinfected polyether was 9 pm longer than the master compared with -3 microm for addition silicone. The range of mean surface roughness of working dies made from irreversible hydrocolloids was 1.4 to 1.7 microm and ranged from 0.5 to 0.7 microm for elastomeric impressions. Conclusion. Immersion disinfection of Jeltrate material with iodophor and Palgaflex material with glyoxal glutaraldehyde produced casts and dies as accurate as the control. Control and disinfected elastomeric impression produced dies as clinically accurate and smooth as the master. Disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions with the glyoxal and phenol glutaraldehyde produced a surface smoother than controls.

The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials

This study evaluated the accuracy of reproduction of stone casts made from impressions using different tray and impression materials. The tray materials used were an acrylic resin, a thermoplastic, and a plastic. The impression materials used were an additional silicone, a polyether, and a polysulfide. Impressions were made of a stainless steel master die that simulated crown preparations for a fixed partial denture and an acrylic resin model with cross-arch and anteroposterior landmarks in stainless steel that typify clinical intra-arch distances. Impressions of the fixed partial denture simulation were made with all three impression materials and all three tray types. Impressions of the cross-arch and anteroposterior landmarks were made by using all three tray types with only the addition reaction silicone impression material. Impressions were poured at 1 hour with a type IV dental stone. Data were analyzed by using ANOVA with a sample size of five. Results indicated that custom-made trays of acrylic resin and the thermoplastic material performed similarly regarding die accuracy and produced clinically acceptable casts. The stock plastic tray consistently produced casts with greater dimensional change than the two custom trays.

Effects of chemical disinfectants on the surface characteristics and color of denture resins

PURPOSE Because dentures are disinfected repeatedly and for various amounts of time, it was of clinical interest to determine whether chemical disinfectants altered the surface texture or inherent color. MATERIAL AND METHODS Five chemical disinfectants (Clorox, Banicide, Cidex-7, Biocide, and Multicide) in combination with five denture resins (Dentsply reline material, Hygenic HyFlo, Hygenic Perm, Lucitone 199, and Triad VLC reline resin) were evaluated at four different times of immersion (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 24 hours, and 7 days). Changes from baseline for surface roughness and color were recorded. Surface roughness data were recorded with a surface analyzer. Color data in CIE L*a*b* color space were measured with a colorimeter. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance and single-factor analysis of variance. RESULTS Although statistical differences were demonstrated among disinfectants and resins for both measured parameters, the magnitudes of change in color and roughness was most often clinically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS One disinfectant (Multicide) cannot be used on all five resins, and the remaining four disinfectants can be used on any of the five resins for up to a period of 30 minutes. All resins tested can be immersed in the four remaining disinfectants for up to 30 minutes without appreciable alteration to surface texture or color. Lucitone 199 resin can be immersed in any of the four disinfectants for up to 7 days without perceivable color change.

Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns

Tooth preparations and seating techniques of castable ceramic crowns differ from metal ceramic crowns. This study evaluated the variable effects of cementation on the marginal adaptation of Dicor, Cerestore, and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. The shoulder preparation was maintained for ceramic crowns, and a cavosurface bevel was designed for metal ceramic crowns. Crowns were made with a replication size of 10, placed on master dies, and the marginal openings measured with a Nikon Measurescope 20 instrument. Thirty crowns were cemented with zinc phosphate cement and the recommended clinical force. Marginal adaptation was not improved with a gingival bevel preparation or an increased seating force. The best marginal adaptation was recorded for Cerestore crowns.

The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Dual-arch trays are often used to generate impressions of prepared teeth and of the opposing arch simultaneously. There is concern that accuracy of the casts generated with this technique can be affected by the type of tray, viscosity of the impression material, and sequence of pouring the cast. PURPOSE This study compared the accuracy of working dies made from impressions with metal and plastic dual-arch trays, for 2 different viscosities of impression tray material and by altering which side of the impression was poured first. MATERIALS AND METHODS Impressions were made of a typodont mandibular arch containing a circular stainless steel crown preparation (standard). There were 3 variables: type of dual-arch tray, impression material viscosity, and order of pour of the impressioned arches. A balanced design with independent samples was used (n=10). Two types of dual-arch trays, plastic (Triple Tray) and metal (COE Impression Tray), and 2 viscosities of addition silicone for the tray were used (Aquasil Rigid and Aquasil Monophase). Type IV gypsum (Fuji-Rock) with a ratio of 20 mL of distilled water to 100 g of powder was hand-mixed for 10 seconds then mixed under vacuum for 40 seconds and poured into the trays while being vibrated. One side of the dual-arch impression was poured with 35 g of stone and allowed to set for 1 hour before the other side was poured with 35 g of stone. The order of pour was randomized, and all casts were allowed to set for 24 hours at room temperature before removal. The dies were measured in 3 dimensions (buccolingual, mesiodistal, and occlusogingival) with a measuring microscope. The gypsum working dies were placed into a custom jig fabricated to permit measurement at a fixed, reproducible position under the microscope. Each dimension of the working dies was measured 3 times, and the mean was used for the sample value. The same 3 aspects of the stainless steel standard were measured multiple times, before and then at the conclusion of measuring all working dies, to arrive at the 3 standard values to which all working die means were compared. The means for the standard used in the statistical analysis were those taken at the conclusion of the study. The intraexaminer variation for measuring the standard was 0.001 mm. A 3-factor analysis of variance was used for the statistical analysis with hypothesis testing at alpha=.05. RESULTS Statistically significant differences were found with viscosity selection for the buccolingual and occlusogingival dimensions of the working die. The rigid material produced working dies slightly taller (1 microm) than the standard, and those from the monophase material were 4 microm shorter. Regarding tray selection, metal trays were slightly more accurate in the mesiodistal dimension, and when monophase was used in a plastic tray, gypsum dies were nearly 30 microm smaller in the mesiodistal dimension (P<.05). Differences were not detected for sequence of pouring impressions. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, the monophase material, when compared with the rigid impression material, was most accurate for the occlusogingival and mesiodistal dimensions, although not as accurate in the buccolingual. This buccolingual difference (0.002 mm-0.006 mm) would be clinically inconsequential with the application of die spacer. The rigid impression material was also unaffected by tray selection for the mesiodistal, whereas monophase was affected. When a monophase impression material was used, plastic dual-arch trays yielded gypsum dies which were significantly smaller (0.029 mm) than the ones generated from the metal trays (0.006 mm). Thus rigid impression materials can be recommended for use in dual-arch trays; however, the magnitude of the differences would generally not be clinically significant because they could be compensated for with several coats of die spacer.

A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Dual-arch trays are often used by the dentists to make crown impressions of opposing quadrants simultaneously. Metal and plastic trays are available, but little is known about the accuracy of the impressions and resultant working dies. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to conduct a clinical trial to compare the accuracy of gypsum working dies made from impressions with metal dual-arch, plastic dual-arch, and complete-arch custom trays. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eight patients requiring a posterior single tooth implant restoration were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. A customized abutment was measured in 3 dimensions (buccolingual, mesiodistal, and occlusogingival) by use of a measuring microscope. Three polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made of the abutment with a complete-arch custom tray, a plastic, and a metal dual-arch tray. Each impression was poured with type IV improved dental die stone. The diameter (buccolingual and mesiodistal), from gingivoaxial to gingivoaxial point angle, and height (occlusogingival), gingivoaxial to occlusoaxial point angle of the abutment standard was determined by measuring each dimension several times to obtain a mean. These 3 mean values served as the controls and were compared with the same measurements of the gypsum dies generated by the 3 different impression techniques. The patient was asked to rank the 3 impressions in order of overall comfort. A multivariate repeated measures single factor ANOVA was used in the statistical analysis (alpha=.05). When main effects were significant, a pairwise comparison of mean values was conducted with Bonferonni adjustment for multiple comparisons. RESULTS There were no significant differences in die accuracy among the 3 trays for the mesiodistal (3.507 mm) and occlusogingival (3.584 mm) dimensions of the implant abutment. Dies were smaller than the standard for these 2 dimensions and larger in the buccolingual dimension. There was a significant difference in accuracy between the metal and plastic dual-arch trays. The dies produced from the metal dual-arch tray were 20 microm larger than the abutment standard compared with 3 microm larger for the plastic tray. The occlusogingival dimension of the working dies was 30 to 40 microm shorter than the implant abutment. Seven of the 8 patients ranked the plastic dual-arch impression as the most comfortable and the complete-arch custom tray as the least comfortable. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, the dimensions of working dies from a custom tray impression did not differ significantly from those created with dual arch trays. However, working dies from a plastic dual-arch tray were more accurate buccolingually than those from metal dual-arch trays.

An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite

The same finishing instruments and techniques revealed no significant differences in the surface roughness of the anterior and posterior composites. The smoothest surface was achieved with Mylar strips; the smoothest instrumented surface was achieved with a series of abrasive disks, but a fine diamond bur with 25 micron particles produced the roughest surface. However, an x-fine diamond with 15 micron particles produced a surface smoothness superior to that produced with a white stone and similar to the smoothness produced with a carbide bur and rubber point. Diamond finishing with slow speed produced a somewhat smoother finish than with high speed. SEM analysis revealed qualitative differences in surface texture even though the average roughness was not shown to differ.

An evaluation of dental stones after repeated exposure to spray disinfectants. Part I: Abrasion and compressive strength

This study investigated the effect of repeated applications of spray disinfectants on gypsum surfaces. Types III and IV gypsum products were evaluated in combination with iodophor, acid glutaraldehyde, phenol, and water spray. Results demonstrated greater resistance to abrasion with increasing numbers of water or disinfectant spray applications. Acid glutaraldehyde spray decreased the compressive strength of type III stone by 26%, phenol increased the compressive strength of type IV stone by 18%, and iodophor had no significant effect on either stone relative to compressive strength.

Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM A newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material is available, but there is little knowledge of its accuracy in relation to existing materials. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of disinfected vinyl siloxanether impressions and compare the accuracy to a common vinyl polysiloxane and a polyether impression system. MATERIAL AND METHODS Impressions were made from a modified dentoform master model containing a simulated crown preparation. Dimensional changes (mm) between the master model and working casts (type IV gypsum) were assessed. The following were evaluated: vinyl polysiloxane in a 1-step, dual-viscosity technique (VPS Dual), polyether as monophase material (PE Mono), and vinyl siloxanether in a 1-step, dual-viscosity (VSE Dual), and monophase technique (VSE Mono). Measurements of the master model and working casts, including anteroposterior (AP) and cross-arch (XA) dimensions, were made with a measuring microscope. The simulated crown preparation was measured in mesiodistal (MDG, MDO), buccolingual (BLG, BLO), and occlusogingival dimensions (OGL, OGB). Disinfection involved immersion for 10 minutes in potassium peroxomonosulfate, sodium benzoate, tartaric acid solution, or no disinfection (control) (n=8). A multivariate GLM statistical approach (MANOVA) was used to analyze the data (alpha=.05). Pearsons correlation test was used for related dimensions. RESULTS The AP and XA dimensions of working casts were larger than the master for the disinfected condition and control. Whether disinfected or not, the working dies were shorter in height (OGB, OGL), larger in the buccolingual dimension (BLO, BLG), somewhat larger in the MDO dimension, and somewhat smaller in the MDG dimension compared to the prepared tooth of the master model, resulting in an irregular or oval profile. There were significant differences among the impression systems for each dimension except AP. Differences between the disinfected and nondisinfected conditions were significant (P=.03) with respect to dimensions of the gypsum working cast, but not for dimensions of the working die (P=.97). In general, differences relative to the master were small and of minor clinical significance considering marginal gaps of crowns smaller than 150-100 mum are considered clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS VSE monophase impressions and VSE dual-viscosity impressions demonstrated acceptable accuracy for clinical use with immersion disinfection, since the results for VSE were comparable to the results for PE and VPS materials, and the differences as compared to the master model were small.

The effect of immersion disinfection of elastomeric impressions on the surface detail reproduction of improved gypsum casts

This investigation examined improved gypsum casts for surface roughness and line-detail reproduction after the immersion disinfection of elastomeric impression materials in an acid glutaraldehyde, an alkaline glutaraldehyde, and a phenol. Impressions were made of a surface roughness standard (Ra = 3.08 microns) that was custom made to include engraved grooves following American Dental Association specification No. 19. Mean surface roughness (Ra) values for all casts of all combinations of disinfectant treatments, impression materials, and improved gypsum stones were obtained with a surface analyzer. Untreated impressions served as controls. Data examined by an analysis of variance indicated that the addition silicone and polyether impression materials provided a surface roughness similar to the precision displacement specimen standard. The acid glutaraldehyde disinfectant demonstrated enhanced line-detail reproduction compared with the standard. Addition silicone and polyether impression materials combined with the acid glutaraldehyde provided the model system closest to the mean surface roughness of the reference standard. These combinations revealed differences in the surface roughness reproduction among the represented improved dental stones.