Retention strength of impression materials to a tray material using different adhesive methods: An in vitro study

Yousef Marafie, Stephen Warwick Looney, Steven Nelson, Daniel Chan, William Browning, Frederick Rueggeberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem: A new self-stick adhesive system has been purported to eliminate the need to use chemical adhesives with plastic impression trays; however, no testing has confirmed the claim. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro retentive strength of impression materials to plastic substrates having conventional adhesive (CA) or the self-stick adhesive system, with and without mechanical retention. Material and methods: Three types of impression materials (irreversible hydrocolloid (IH), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE)) were applied to polystyrene disc-shaped surfaces (33.68 cm2) that were held on the arms of a universal testing machine. The appropriate CA or the self-stick adhesive system (Self-Stick Dots) (SSD) was applied to the plates, which had either no mechanical retention, or equally spaced mechanical perforations (n=4). An in vivo pilot test determined the appropriate rate of plate separation. Plates with impression material were lowered to provide 4 mm of space, the material set, and plates were separated using the appropriate speed. Force at first separation was divided by plate area (peak stress). Five replications per test condition were made, and results were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni-adjusted t tests (α=.05). Results: Within each impression material/test combination, stress using SSD was significantly lower than CA (P<.05). Mechanical retention did not always provide significantly greater strength. The combination of mechanical retention and CA yielded the highest strength within each material type, except for PE, for which nonmechanical and CA strength did not differ from that of mechanical and CA. Conclusions: Use of the self-stick adhesive system provided significantly lower retentive strength to plastic tray material than chemical adhesives for irreversible hydrocolloid, vinyl polysiloxane, and polyether. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:432-440).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)432-440
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume100
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008

Fingerprint

Adhesives
Plastics
Colloids
In Vitro Techniques
Polystyrenes
Exercise Test
Analysis of Variance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Retention strength of impression materials to a tray material using different adhesive methods : An in vitro study. / Marafie, Yousef; Looney, Stephen Warwick; Nelson, Steven; Chan, Daniel; Browning, William; Rueggeberg, Frederick.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 100, No. 6, 01.12.2008, p. 432-440.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d798a6745ca942249502862afa0ee7d6,
title = "Retention strength of impression materials to a tray material using different adhesive methods: An in vitro study",
abstract = "Statement of problem: A new self-stick adhesive system has been purported to eliminate the need to use chemical adhesives with plastic impression trays; however, no testing has confirmed the claim. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro retentive strength of impression materials to plastic substrates having conventional adhesive (CA) or the self-stick adhesive system, with and without mechanical retention. Material and methods: Three types of impression materials (irreversible hydrocolloid (IH), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE)) were applied to polystyrene disc-shaped surfaces (33.68 cm2) that were held on the arms of a universal testing machine. The appropriate CA or the self-stick adhesive system (Self-Stick Dots) (SSD) was applied to the plates, which had either no mechanical retention, or equally spaced mechanical perforations (n=4). An in vivo pilot test determined the appropriate rate of plate separation. Plates with impression material were lowered to provide 4 mm of space, the material set, and plates were separated using the appropriate speed. Force at first separation was divided by plate area (peak stress). Five replications per test condition were made, and results were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni-adjusted t tests (α=.05). Results: Within each impression material/test combination, stress using SSD was significantly lower than CA (P<.05). Mechanical retention did not always provide significantly greater strength. The combination of mechanical retention and CA yielded the highest strength within each material type, except for PE, for which nonmechanical and CA strength did not differ from that of mechanical and CA. Conclusions: Use of the self-stick adhesive system provided significantly lower retentive strength to plastic tray material than chemical adhesives for irreversible hydrocolloid, vinyl polysiloxane, and polyether. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:432-440).",
author = "Yousef Marafie and Looney, {Stephen Warwick} and Steven Nelson and Daniel Chan and William Browning and Frederick Rueggeberg",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60260-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "432--440",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retention strength of impression materials to a tray material using different adhesive methods

T2 - An in vitro study

AU - Marafie, Yousef

AU - Looney, Stephen Warwick

AU - Nelson, Steven

AU - Chan, Daniel

AU - Browning, William

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - Statement of problem: A new self-stick adhesive system has been purported to eliminate the need to use chemical adhesives with plastic impression trays; however, no testing has confirmed the claim. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro retentive strength of impression materials to plastic substrates having conventional adhesive (CA) or the self-stick adhesive system, with and without mechanical retention. Material and methods: Three types of impression materials (irreversible hydrocolloid (IH), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE)) were applied to polystyrene disc-shaped surfaces (33.68 cm2) that were held on the arms of a universal testing machine. The appropriate CA or the self-stick adhesive system (Self-Stick Dots) (SSD) was applied to the plates, which had either no mechanical retention, or equally spaced mechanical perforations (n=4). An in vivo pilot test determined the appropriate rate of plate separation. Plates with impression material were lowered to provide 4 mm of space, the material set, and plates were separated using the appropriate speed. Force at first separation was divided by plate area (peak stress). Five replications per test condition were made, and results were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni-adjusted t tests (α=.05). Results: Within each impression material/test combination, stress using SSD was significantly lower than CA (P<.05). Mechanical retention did not always provide significantly greater strength. The combination of mechanical retention and CA yielded the highest strength within each material type, except for PE, for which nonmechanical and CA strength did not differ from that of mechanical and CA. Conclusions: Use of the self-stick adhesive system provided significantly lower retentive strength to plastic tray material than chemical adhesives for irreversible hydrocolloid, vinyl polysiloxane, and polyether. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:432-440).

AB - Statement of problem: A new self-stick adhesive system has been purported to eliminate the need to use chemical adhesives with plastic impression trays; however, no testing has confirmed the claim. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro retentive strength of impression materials to plastic substrates having conventional adhesive (CA) or the self-stick adhesive system, with and without mechanical retention. Material and methods: Three types of impression materials (irreversible hydrocolloid (IH), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE)) were applied to polystyrene disc-shaped surfaces (33.68 cm2) that were held on the arms of a universal testing machine. The appropriate CA or the self-stick adhesive system (Self-Stick Dots) (SSD) was applied to the plates, which had either no mechanical retention, or equally spaced mechanical perforations (n=4). An in vivo pilot test determined the appropriate rate of plate separation. Plates with impression material were lowered to provide 4 mm of space, the material set, and plates were separated using the appropriate speed. Force at first separation was divided by plate area (peak stress). Five replications per test condition were made, and results were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni-adjusted t tests (α=.05). Results: Within each impression material/test combination, stress using SSD was significantly lower than CA (P<.05). Mechanical retention did not always provide significantly greater strength. The combination of mechanical retention and CA yielded the highest strength within each material type, except for PE, for which nonmechanical and CA strength did not differ from that of mechanical and CA. Conclusions: Use of the self-stick adhesive system provided significantly lower retentive strength to plastic tray material than chemical adhesives for irreversible hydrocolloid, vinyl polysiloxane, and polyether. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:432-440).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56349109013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56349109013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60260-7

DO - 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60260-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 19033027

AN - SCOPUS:56349109013

VL - 100

SP - 432

EP - 440

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 6

ER -