Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2016; 10(01): 007-015
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

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

Revathy Gounder
1   Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
,
B. V. J. Vikas
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Ex-Professor of Army College of Dental Sciences, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

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.

Key words:

Addition silicone - Aluwax - bite registration materials - dimensional stability - disinfection - interocclusal recording materials - polyether
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Anusavice KJ. Impression materials. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed.. St. Louis: Saunders; 2011: 253
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Pipko DJ, Khassa S. An in vitro study of the effect of different occlusal registration materials on the reproducibility of mounting casts. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2009; 9: 24-7
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marcinak CF, Young FA, Draughn RA, Flemming WR. Linear dimensional changes in elastic impression materials. J Dent Res 1980; 59: 1152-5
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Taylor RL, Wright PS, Maryan C. Disinfection procedures: Their effect on the dimensional accuracy and surface quality of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and gypsum casts. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 103-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guler U, Budak Y, Ruh E, Ocal Y, Canay S, Akyon Y. Effect of mixing techniques on bacterial attachment and disinfection time of polyether impression material. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (Suppl. 01) S54-9
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kamble SS, Khandeparker RV, Somasundaram P, Raghav S, Babaji RP, Varghese TJ. Comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy of elastomeric impression materials when treated with autoclave, microwave, and chemical disinfection. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7: 22-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sweeney S, Smith DK, Messersmith M. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148: 245-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tejo SK, Kumar AG, Kattimani VS, Desai PD, Nalla S, Chaitanya KK. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials-an in vitro multi-centre study. Head Face Med 2012; 8: 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Anup G, Ahila SC, Vasanthakumar M. Evaluation of dimensional stability, accuracy and surface hardness of interocclusal recording materials at various time intervals: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011; 11: 26-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Iwaki Y, Wakabayashi N, Igarashi Y. Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations. Oper Dent 2013; 38: 309-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Oderinu OH, Adegbulugbe IC, Shaba OP. Comparison of the dimensional stability of alginate impressions disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite using the spray or immersion method. Nig Q J Hosp Med 2007; 17: 69-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jagger DC, Al Jabra O, Harrison A, Vowles RW, McNally L. The effect of a range of disinfectants on the dimensional accuracy of some impression materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 20s04 12: 154-60
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Habu H, Uchida H, Nagai M, Hiraguchi H. Study on the disinfection of alginate impressions 2. Dimensional stability and surface roughness after immersing or spraying treatment with povidone-iodine solution. Shika Zairyo Kikai 1989; 8: 701-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and Disinfectants; activity, action and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001; 14: 227
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Silva SM, Salvador MC. Effect of the disinfection technique on the linear dimensional stability of dental impression materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12: 244-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rueggeberg FA, Beall FE, Kelly MT, Schuster GS. Sodium hypochlorite disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 628-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Drennon DG, Johnson GH, Powell GL. The accuracy and efficacy of disinfection by spray atomization on elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 468-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tullner JB, Commette JA, Moon PC. Linear dimensional changes in dental impressions after immersion in disinfectant solutions. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 60: 725-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Matyas J, Dao N, Caputo AA, Lucatorto FM. Effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 25-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rubel BS. Impression materials: A comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51: 629-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Skurnik H. Resin registration for interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 1977; 37: 164-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Millstein PL, Kronman JH, Clark RE. Determination of the accuracy of wax interocclusal registrations. J Prosthet Dent 1971; 25: 189-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Millstein PL, Clark RE. Determination of the accuracy of laminated wax interocclusal wafers. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 327-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Craig RG. Restorative Dental Materials. 10th ed.. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997: 302-3
    Google Scholar
  • 25 ANSI/ADA American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aqueous, elastomeric dental impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 1977; 94: 733-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar