A Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Detail Reproduction of Four Hydrophilic Vinyl Polysiloxane Impression Materials Tested Under Dry, Moist, and Wet Conditions-An In Vitro Study
A Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Detail Reproduction of Four Hydrophilic Vinyl Polysiloxane Impression Materials Tested Under Dry, Moist, and Wet Conditions-An In Vitro Study
复制标题
在干燥、潮湿和湿润条件下测试的四种亲水性乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模材料的尺寸精度和表面细节再现的比较评估——体外研究
DOI：
10.1007/s13191-014-0365-z
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Manjari Agrawal
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rahul Nagrath;Manesh Lahori;Manjari Agrawal
乙烯基聚硅氧烷（VPS）印模材料在固定和活动修复中有着广泛的应用。VPS印模材料的一个主要限制是它们的疏水性。这个问题有两个方面，牙科石膏材料对聚合印模的润湿性和未聚合材料润湿口内组织的能力。为了解决这个问题，制造商添加了表面活性剂，并将这些新产品标记为“亲水性乙烯基聚硅氧烷”。本研究的目的是评估和比较四种亲水性VPS印模材料在干燥、潮湿和潮湿条件下使用时的尺寸精度和表面细节再现。共180件样品由与ADA sp. no. 19中所述相似的不锈钢模具制成。用三条水平线和两条垂直线刻划模具。在干燥、潮湿和潮湿条件下进行试验。通过使用通用长度测量机将每个印模中的中间水平线的长度与金属模具上的相同线进行比较来测量尺寸精度。对3种条件下4种印模材料测量长度的百分比变化数据进行双因素方差分析，以评价尺寸精度。表面细节以两种方式进行评估：（1）使用类似于ADA sp. no. 19的标准进行细节再现，以及（2）使用一种方法，根据其表面特征将印象分类为满意或不满意：存在坑、空隙或粗糙度。Pearson X2（α = 0.05）用于比较表面细节再现结果。条件（干燥、潮湿和湿润）对所有四种材料的尺寸精度均未造成显著不良影响。在两种表面细节分析中，干燥、潮湿和湿润条件对所有四种材料的细节再现都有显著影响（P< 0.05）。该研究得出结论，所有四种印模材料的尺寸精度均在ADA标准范围内。对于所有四种材料，仅在干燥条件下获得最佳表面细节结果。
Vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials have application in a wide variety of situations in both fixed and removable prosthodontics. A major limitation of VPS impression materials is their hydrophobicity. There are two aspects of this problem, the wettability of the polymerized impression by dental gypsum materials and the ability of the unpolymerized material to wet intraoral tissues. To address this problem, manufacturers have added surfactants and labelled these new products as “hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane.” The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of four hydrophilic VPS impression materials, when used under dry, moist, and wet conditions. A total of 180 samples were made of stainless steel die similar to as described in ADA sp. no. 19. The die was scored with three horizontal and two vertical lines. Impressions were made under dry, moist and wet conditions. Dimensional accuracy was measured by comparing the length of the middle horizontal line in each impression to the same line on the metal die, by using Universal Length Measuring machine. A 2-way ANOVA was performed on the percentage change data for measured lengths of the 4 impression materials under the 3 conditions to evaluate dimensional accuracy. Surface detail was evaluated in two ways: (1) by use of criteria similar to ADA sp. no. 19 for detail reproduction, and (2) by use of a method that categorized the impressions as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on their surface characteristics: presence of pits, voids, or roughness. Pearson X2 (α = 0.05) was used to compare surface detail reproduction results. Conditions (dry, moist, and wet) did not cause significant adverse effects on the dimensional accuracy of all the four material. With both surface detail analyses, dry, moist, and wet conditions had a significant effect on the detail reproduction of all the four materials (P< 0.05). The study concluded that the dimensional accuracy of all the four impression materials tested was well within ADA standards. Best surface detail results were obtained only under dry conditions for all the four materials.