TENSILE BOND STRENGTH BETWEEN ELASTOMERIC IMPRESSION MATERIALS AND TRAY RESINS DEPENDING ON THE THICKNESS OF THE TRAY ADHESIVE

  • Kim, Tae-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Moon, Hong-Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Keun-Woo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Chung, Moon-Kyu (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Published : 2006.12.31

Abstract

Statement of problem. Elastomeric impression materials have been widely used to obtain an accurate impression. However there have not been enough studies on the influence of the thickness of the tray adhesives on the bonding strength between the trays and the elastomeric impression materials. Purpose. In order to understand the relationship between the thickness of the tray adhesive and the tensile bond strength and to suggest the thickness at which the bonding strength is strongest, tensile bond strength related to the thickness of adhesives of 3 different elastomeric impression materials were tested. Materials and methods. 3 impression materials, $Permlastic^{(R)}$. Regular Set(Kerr Corp., Romulus, Michigan, U.S.A.), $Impregum^{TM}$ $Penta^{TM}$(3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and Aquasil Ultra Monophase Regular Set Smart Wetting.(Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Delaware, U.S.A.), were used in this study, and tray adhesives from the same manufacturers of the impression materials were used, which were Rubber Base Adhesive, Polyether Adhesive, and Silfix, respectively. The tray specimens were prepared by autopolymerizing the tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Illinois, U.S.A.), and a PVC pipe was used to house the impression material. In group A, tray adhesives were applied in multiple thin layers of 1 to 5 and in group B, adhesives were applied only once, in the thickness equivalent to several applications. Lightness($L^*$) of the adhesion surface was measured with a spectrophotometer(CM-3500d, Konica Minolta, Sakai, Osaka, Japan). The tensile bond strength of the elastomeric impression material and the tray resin was measured with universal materials testing machines(Instron, Model 3366, Instron Corp, Nowood, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). A formula between the number of adhesive application layers and the lightness of the adhesion surface was deduced in group A, and the number of adhesive layers in group B was estimated by applying the lightness($L^*$) to the deduced formula. Results. 1. In group A, a statistically significant increase in tensile bond strength appeared when the number of application layers increased from 1 to 2 and from 4 to 5, and no significant difference was present between 2, 3, and 4 layers in Permlastic. In Impregum, the tensile bond strength was significantly increased when the number of adhesive layers increased from 1 to 3, but no significant difference after 3 layers. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength significantly increased as the number of application layers increased up to 4 but showed no significant difference between 4 and 5. 2. In group B, the tensile bond strength was decreased when the thickness of the adhesive increased in Permlastic. Impregum showed an increased tensile bond strength when the thickness of the adhesive was increased. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength increased as the number of adhesive application layers increased up to approximately 2.5 layers but it sharply decreased after approximately 4.5. Conclusion. From the study, the common idea that it is better to apply a thin and single coat of tray adhesive needs correction in more detailed ways, and instructions on some of the tray adhesives should be reconsidered since there were several cases in which the tensile bond strength increased according to the increase in the thickness of the adhesives.

Keywords

References

  1. Bomberg TJ, Goldfogel MH, Hoffman W, Jr., Bomberg SE. Considerations for adhesion of impression materials to impression trays. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:681-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90398-8
  2. Williams PT, Jackson DG, Bergman W. An evaluation of the time-dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric impression materi-als. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:120-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90194-X
  3. Payne JA, Pereira BP. Bond strength of three nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials to a light-activated resin tray. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5: 55-8
  4. Samman JM, Fletcher A. A study of impression tray adhesives. Quintessence Int 1985;16:305-9
  5. Cho GC, Donovan TE, Chee WW, White SN. Tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impressions bonded to a custom tray as a function of drying time: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:419-23 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80068-X
  6. Abdullah MA, Talic YF. The effect of custom tray material type and fabrication technique on tensile bond strength of impression material adhesive systems. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:312-7 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01023.x
  7. Nicholson JW, Porter KH, Dolan T. Strength of tray adhesives for elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 1985;10:12-6
  8. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Bosser MJ, Nafso AJ. The effect of custom tray material type and surface treatment on the tensile bond strength of an impression material/adhesive system. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:303-6
  9. Chai JY, Jameson LM, Moser JB, Hesby RA. Adhesive properties of several impression material systems: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66: 201-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80048-4
  10. Hogans WR, 3rd, Agar JR. The bond strength of elastomer tray adhesives to thermoplastic and acrylic resin tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:541-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90087-Q
  11. Payne JA, Pereira BP. Bond strength of two nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials bonded to two thermoplastic resin tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:563-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80306-3
  12. Wang RR, Nguyen T, Boyle AM. The effect of tray material and surface condition on the shear bond strength of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:449-54 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80344-0
  13. Bindra B, Heath JR. Adhesion of elastomeric impression materials to trays. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24: 63-9 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00458.x
  14. Davis GB, Moser JB, Brinsden GI. The bonding properties of elastomer tray adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:278-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(76)90183-9
  15. Sulong MZ, Setchell DJ. Properties of the tray adhesive of an addition polymerizing silicone to impression tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:743-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90407-N
  16. Ellam AH, Smith DC. The relative effectiveness of adhesives for polysulphide impression materials. Br Dent J 1966;120:135-8
  17. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Brown JS. The effect of custom tray material type and adhesive drying time on the tensile bond strength of an impression material/adhesive system. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:129-33
  18. Chai JY, Jameson LM, Moser JB, Hesby RA. Adhesive properties of several impression material systems: Part II. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:287- 92 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90251-Q
  19. Carrotte PV, Winstanley RB, Green JR. A study of the quality of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial laboratory. Br Dent J 1993:174:235-40 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808129
  20. Peregrina A, Land MF, Wandling C, Johnston WM. The effect of different adhesives on vinyl polysiloxane bond strength to two tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:209-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.011
  21. Yi MH, Chung MK. Tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impression and tray resin depending on drying time of tray adhesive. Seoul; Master's Thesis; Graduate School of Yonsei University; 2006
  22. Wilson HJ, Smith DC. The bonding of alginate impression materials to impression trays. Br Dent J 1963;115:291-4
  23. Shigeto N, Kawazoe Y, Hamada T, Yamada S. Adhesion between copper-plated acrylic tray resin and a polysulfide rubber impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:228-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90180-X
  24. Landrock AH. Adhesive technology handbook. Noyes Publications Mill Road, Park Ridge, New Jersey U.S.A. 1985
  25. Lampe I, Marton S, Hegedus C. Effect of mixing technique on shrinkage rate of one polyether and two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:590