The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Universal Tray Adhesives on Silicone Impression Materials Using an Acrylic Tray

Sapna C Kambiranda, Brilvin Pinto, Adamane S Chaitra, Rautredilla P Rani

Keywords : Acrylic tray material, Adhesive bond strength, Elastomeric impression material, Separation failure, Universal tray adhesive

Citation Information : Kambiranda SC, Pinto B, Chaitra AS, Rani RP. Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Universal Tray Adhesives on Silicone Impression Materials Using an Acrylic Tray. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (12):1406-1411.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2699

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the bond strength of two commercially available universal tray adhesives on polyvinylsiloxane addition silicone and condensation silicone impression materials to an autopolymerizing polymethyl methacrylate acrylic tray material. Materials and methods: Sixty flat square specimens were fabricated from autopolymerizing polymethyl methacrylate tray material to which an eye hook was incorporated to serve as the point of attachment to a universal testing machine. A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe of 15 mm diameter and 25 mm long was used to house the impression material, and a metal rod was inserted into two centered holes to provide retention that serves as the second point of attachment to the universal testing machine. The specimens were divided into 4 groups of 15 specimens each. The first and second groups of specimens were applied with Coltene and Zhermack universal tray adhesives and tested with addition silicone impression material. The third and fourth groups were coated with the above-mentioned adhesives, respectively, and tested with condensation silicone. Each specimen was then attached to the universal testing machine. The maximum force at which separation failure occurred was divided by the area of adhesion and recorded as the adhesive strength in MPa. Results: A significant difference was observed between mean MPa values of Zhermack and Colten universal tray adhesives, where the F value of 1314.116 was found to be significant at 0.000 levels indicating that the Zhermack adhesive had higher MPa than Coltene adhesive. Impression material again indicated significant difference (F = 132.514; p = 0.000), where addition silicone had higher MPa value than condensation silicone. Also, the interaction between adhesive and impression material was found to be significant (F = 10.794; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The adhesive bond strength of Zhermack universal tray adhesive was higher compared to that of Coltene universal tray adhesive irrespective of the elastomeric impression material. It was also found that bond strength of Zhermack universal tray adhesive with addition silicone impression material was the highest and Coltene universal tray adhesive with condensation silicone impression material was the least of all the four groups. Clinical significance: Tray adhesives need to be applied to the tray to obtain an accurate and consistent impression. If there is a separation of impression materials from the tray, it may results in a distorted impression leading to poor final restorations.

  1. Cho GC, Donovan TE, Chee WW. Tensile bond strength of polyvinylsiloxane impressions bonded to a custom tray as a function of drying time: part 1. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(5):419–423. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80068-X.
  2. Poojya R, Jyothi PA. Influence of adhesives on the bond strength of vinylpolysiloxane to acrylic tray material. IJCD 2011;2(2):57–60.
  3. Nishigawa G, Sato T, Suenaga K, et al. Efficacy of tray adhesives for the adhesion of elastomer rubber impression materials to impression modelling plastics for border moulding. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(2):140–144. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70207-0.
  4. Bomberg TJ, Goldfogel MH, Hoffman Jr W, et al. Considerations for adhesion of impression materials to impression trays. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60(6):681–684. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90398-8.
  5. Yi MH, Shim JS, Lee KW, et al. Drying time of tray adhesives for adequate tensile bond strength between polyvinylsiloxane impression and tray resin material. J Adv Prosthodont 2009;1(2):63–70. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2009.1.2.63.
  6. Sulong MZ, Setchell DJ. Properties of the tray adhesive of an addition polymerizing silicone to impression tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(6):743–747. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90407-N.
  7. Ciesco IN, Malone WFP, Sandrik JL, et al. Comparison of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(1):89–94. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81) 90018-4.
  8. Peregrina AL, Wandling C, Johnston WM. The effect of different adhesives on vinyl polysiloxane bond strength to two tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(3):209–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.011.
  9. Craig R, Powers J. Restorative dental materials, 11th ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2001. p. 363.
  10. Phillips RW, Skinner EW. Skinner's science of dental materials, 8th ed., Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2008. p. 150.
  11. Tjan AH, Whang SB. Comparing effects of tray treatment on the accuracy of dies. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(2):175–178. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90172-7.
  12. Grant BE, Tjan AH. Tensile and peel bond strengths of tray adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(2):165–168. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90009-1.
  13. Payne JA, Pereira BP. Bond strength of two nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials bonded to two thermoplastic resin tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(6):563–568. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80306-3.
  14. Marafie Y, Looney S, Nelson S. Retention strength of impression materials to tray material using different adhesive methods. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(6):432–444. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60260-7.
  15. Ona M, Takahashi H, Sato M, et al. Effect of reactive adhesives on the tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials to methylmethacrylate tray material. Dent Mater J 2010;29(3):336–340. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2009-096.
  16. Leung KC, Chow TW, Woo EC. Effect of adhesive drying time on the bond strength of irreversible hydrocolloid to stainless steel. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(5):586–590. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70214-3.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.