IADR Abstract Archives
Direct Pairwise Comparison of Initial Hydrophilicity of Unset Impression Materials
Objectives: To directly compare the hydrophilic properties of polyether, vinyl polysiloxane(VPS), and one newly-developed super-hydrophilic-VPS impression materials in the unset state. The comparison was performed in a newly developed 2-material-side-by-side interface setup, by examining how a drop of water placed on this interface behaves.
Methods: Five VPS impression materials (n=5) were tested against two polyether impression materials (Impregum™ Penta™ (3M ESPE) and Impregum™ Penta™ Soft (3M ESPE)) and one experimental medium-bodied VPS (3M ESPE). The experimental medium-bodied VPS was additionally tested against the two polyether impression materials. Each test sample was made by: mixing each material using Pentamix™-3 (3M-ESPE) with standard mixing times; creating a 0.2mm thick interface by placing materials side-by-side; placing a 5µl drop of water on the interface by a DropShape Analysis System (DSA-30, Krüss) within 60s of the start of mixing. At a drop age of 2s, the horizontal spreading radius of water in pixels on each material was recorded in Avi videos and Bitmap images, documented in Microsoft® Paint and a standardized ratio was calculated. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey test were conducted to determine the statistical significance using Minitab® version-16.
Results: The ratios comparing different materials varied in statistical similarity and difference (Table 1).
Conclusions: Polyether materials tested are more hydrophilic than VPS materials in side-by-side test (ratio>1,p=0.000). The experimental medium-bodied VPS is more hydrophilic than other VPS materials tested (ratio>1,p=0.000). When the experimental medium-bodied VPS is compared with the polyether materials tested at the early stage (60s after mixing, 2s after initial water contact), polyether materials behaved equally to each other (T-test,p=0.467) and showed greater hydrophilicity than the experimental medium-bodied VPS (ratio<1,p=0.000). The clinical relevance has yet to be tested.
Methods: Five VPS impression materials (n=5) were tested against two polyether impression materials (Impregum™ Penta™ (3M ESPE) and Impregum™ Penta™ Soft (3M ESPE)) and one experimental medium-bodied VPS (3M ESPE). The experimental medium-bodied VPS was additionally tested against the two polyether impression materials. Each test sample was made by: mixing each material using Pentamix™-3 (3M-ESPE) with standard mixing times; creating a 0.2mm thick interface by placing materials side-by-side; placing a 5µl drop of water on the interface by a DropShape Analysis System (DSA-30, Krüss) within 60s of the start of mixing. At a drop age of 2s, the horizontal spreading radius of water in pixels on each material was recorded in Avi videos and Bitmap images, documented in Microsoft® Paint and a standardized ratio was calculated. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey test were conducted to determine the statistical significance using Minitab® version-16.
Results: The ratios comparing different materials varied in statistical similarity and difference (Table 1).
Conclusions: Polyether materials tested are more hydrophilic than VPS materials in side-by-side test (ratio>1,p=0.000). The experimental medium-bodied VPS is more hydrophilic than other VPS materials tested (ratio>1,p=0.000). When the experimental medium-bodied VPS is compared with the polyether materials tested at the early stage (60s after mixing, 2s after initial water contact), polyether materials behaved equally to each other (T-test,p=0.467) and showed greater hydrophilicity than the experimental medium-bodied VPS (ratio<1,p=0.000). The clinical relevance has yet to be tested.
IMAGES
2114693_File000000.JPG
2114693_File000000.JPG