SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2019 ) > List of Articles
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.
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.