The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Addition Silicone with Different Custom Tray Materials Using Different Retentive Methods

Rupali V Patil, Vasantha Vijayraghavan, Madhurakad Jadhav, Shweta Jajoo, Sneha Desai

Keywords : Acrylic resin, Addition silicone, Tensile bond strength, Tray adhesive, Tray repair material, Visible light cure resin

Citation Information : Patil RV, Vijayraghavan V, Jadhav M, Jajoo S, Desai S. Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Addition Silicone with Different Custom Tray Materials Using Different Retentive Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (3):279-283.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3009

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To compare the bond strength of addition silicone with different commonly used custom tray materials by means of different retentive methods (mechanical, chemical, and a combination of chemical and mechanical methods). Materials and methods: Fabrications of 90 samples of different tray resin materials were done using an aluminum mold. They were divided into three main groups. Perforations, adhesive application, and a combination of both were done according to the grouping of samples. Polyvinyl siloxane material (medium body) was loaded over the samples. A universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute was used to determine the tensile bond strength of tray resin samples to medium body impression material. Based on these values, Student's-test, group statistics, and ANOVA test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Visible light cure (VLC) resin showed the highest bond strength in chemicomechanical methods. This was followed by repair resin material. Tray resin material showed poor bond strength in all three retentive methods. The mechanical method was the least retentive in all three resin materials. Clinical significance: VLC tray resin material can be used with chemical and mechanical retention in clinical situations to make predictably accurate elastomeric impressions. Conclusion: It was concluded that VLC tray resin shows good bond strength with polyvinyl siloxane impression material when both mechanical perforations and adhesive applications were done.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Wassell RW, Ibbetson RJ. Accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impression made with standard and reinforced stock trays. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(6):748–757. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80006-x.
  2. Lacy AM, Fukui H. Bellman T, et al. Time dependent accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. Part II: Polyether, polysulphide and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(3):329–333. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90400-5.
  3. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Mosely JP. Custom impression trays. Part II: Removal forces. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(3):316–318. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90474-x.
  4. 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(5):563–568. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80344-0.
  5. Bomberg TJ, Goldfogel MH, Hoffman W, et al. Consideration for adhesion of impression materials to impression trays. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60(6):681–684. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90398-8.
  6. Bulla DAP, Morimoto NI. Deposition of thick TEOS PECVD silicon oxide layers for integrated optical waveguide applications. J Thin Solid Films 1998;334(1–2):60–64. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-6090(98)01117-1.
  7. Pagniano RP, Scheid RC, Clowson RL, et al. Linear dimensional change of acrylic resins used in fabrication of custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47(3):279–284. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90157-3.
  8. Phillips RW. Skinner science of dental materials. 8th ed. Philadelphia; 1991.
  9. Fehling AW, Hesby RA, Pelleu GB. Dimensional stability of auto polymerizing acrylic resin impression trays. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(5):592–597. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90038-7.
  10. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Brown JS. The effect of custom tray material type and adhesive drying type on tensile bond strength of an impression material/adhesive system. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(2):129–133. PMID: 8003192.
  11. Brown D. Factors affecting the dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Dent 1973;1(6):265–274. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(73)90103-6.
  12. Eames WB, Sieweke JC, Walance SW, et al. Elastomeric impression material: Effect of bulk on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41(3):304–307. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90013-1.
  13. Bomberg PJ, Hatch RA, Hoffman W. Impression material thickness in stock and custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54(2):170–172. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90278-1.
  14. Gordon GE, Johnson GH, Drennon DG. The effect of tray selection and accuracy of impression of tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(1):12–15. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90257-d.
  15. Abdullah MA, Talic YF. The effect of custom tray material type and fabrication technique on tensile bond strength of impression material adhesive system. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(3):312–317. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01023.x.
  16. Devlin H, Cash AJ, Watts DC. Mechanical behavior and structure of light cured special tray materials. J Dent 1995;23(4):255–259. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(95)91191-O.
  17. Tjan AH, Nemetz H, Nguyen LT, et al. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(1):19–28.
  18. Fusayama T, Nakazato M. The design of stock trays and the retention of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1969;21(2):136–142. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(69)90086-9.
  19. Samman JM, Fletcher A. A study of impression tray adhesive. Quintessence Int 1985;16(4):305–309. PMID: 3892569.
  20. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material. A review properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(5):728–732. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90192-d.
  21. Klooster J, Logan GI, Tjan AH. Effects of strain rate on the behavior of elastomeric impression. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(3):292–298. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90252-r.
  22. Millar BJ, Dunne SM, Robinson PB. In vitro study of number of surface defects in monophase and two phase addition silicone. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(1):32–35. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70088-5.
  23. Marafie Y, Looney S, Nelson S, et al. Retention strength of impression materials to a tray material using different adhesive methods. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(6):432–440. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60260-7.
  24. Chai JY, Jameson LM, Moser JB, et al. Adhesive properties of several impression material systems: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(2):201–209. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80048-4.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.