The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Variations in the Compressive Strength of a Die Stone with Three Different Sulfates at Eight Different Concentrations: An In Vitro Study

Rajesh Vyas, Sunil K Vaddamanu, Vishwanath Gurumurthy, Mohamed S Kuruniyan, Syed A Quadri, Masroor A Kanji

Keywords : Compressive strength, Die stone, Sulfate

Citation Information : Vyas R, Vaddamanu SK, Gurumurthy V, Kuruniyan MS, Quadri SA, Kanji MA. Variations in the Compressive Strength of a Die Stone with Three Different Sulfates at Eight Different Concentrations: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (11):1297-1306.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2671

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the alteration in the compressive strength (CS) of the die stone with three different sulfate salt additives, each at eight various concentrations. Materials and methods: The specimens were prepared at specific dimensions (length: 2.5 cm and diameter: 2.5 cm) divided into three test groups based on the type of sulfate additives used [potassium sulfate (K2SO4), zinc sulfate (ZnSO4·H2O), and manganese sulfate (MnSO4·H2O)] and one control group, without any additives. Again, each group was divided into eight subgroups based on concentration of sulfates (ranging from 0.2% to 4%). A total of 375 specimens were tested. CS (in MPa) was evaluated after 72 hours of drying time, using an universal testing machine. Statistical analysis: A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for intergroup comparisons. Individual comparisons were done using the post hoc Tukey HSD analysis. Results: All the three additives at all the concentrations have shown an inferior resistance to compressive forces when compared to the standard specimen. However, the least mean CS was observed at 0.8% of MnSO4 (10.95 MPa) and the highest was at 1% K2SO4 (25.28%). A highly significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed among the concentrations in all the three groups (K2SO4, MnSO4, and ZnSO4 groups) and F values were derived as 69.84, 24.29, and 130.52, respectively. At each concentration, comparisons between the groups have shown a significant difference (p < 0.05) at almost all concentrations. Conclusion: The CS of die stone is shown to be decreased with an increase in all three types of sulfate additives when compared to the control specimen. Clinical significance: Die stone is an often used gypsum material in the field of dentistry. Compressive strength of the die stone is crucial in prosthetic dentistry; chemical additives such as sulfate salts may increase the CS such that the die stone can withstand clinical and laboratory handling forces.


PDF Share
  1. Aranda B, Guillou O, et al. Effect of multiphasic structure of binder particles on the mechanical properties of a gypsum-based material. Constr Build Mater 2016 Jan 15;102:175–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.171.
  2. Davis WA. The nature of the changes involved in the production and setting of plaster of paris. J Soc Chem Ind 1907;26:727–738. DOI: 10.1002/jctb.5000261301.
  3. Dundon ML, Mack E. The solubility and surface energy of calcium sulfate. J Am Chem Soc 1923 Nov 1;45(11):2479–2485. DOI: 10.1021/ja01664a001.
  4. Ramsdell LS, Partridge EP. The crystal forms of calcium sulphate. Am Mineral 1929;14(2):59–74.
  5. Welch FC. Effects of Accelerators and Retarders on Calcined Gypsum. J Am Ceram Soc 1923;6(11):1197–1207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1923.tb17689.x.
  6. Ridge MJ, Boell GR. Research CD of B. The “Water requirement” of calcined gypsum. 4, Effects of gum arabic [Internet]. Melbourne, Vic.: CSIRO, Division of Building Research; 1964 [cited 2018 Jun 2]. p. 58, https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/23821381.
  7. Craig RG, O'Brien WJ, et al. Dental materials properties and manipulation [Internet], 5th ed., St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1992 [cited 2018 Feb 9]; p. 202, https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/250910724.
  8. Earnshaw R, Smith DC. The tensile and compressive strength of plaster and stone. Aust Dent J 1966 Dec 1;11(6):415–422. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1966.tb03803.x.
  9. Azer SS, Kerby RE, et al. Effect of mixing methods on the physical properties of dental stones. J Dent 2008 Sep 1;36(9):736–744. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.010.
  10. Lindquist TJ, Stanford CM, et al. Influence of surface hardener on gypsum abrasion resistance and water sorption. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Nov;90(5):441–446. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00544-4.
  11. Zakaria MR, Johnston WM, et al. The effects of a liquid dispersing agent and a microcrystalline additive on the physical properties of type IV gypsum. J Prosthet Dent 1988 Nov;60(5):630–637. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90227-2.
  12. Wei Y, Gao Y, et al. [Strengthening a dental gypsum model by infiltration of cyanoacrylate]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2014 Jun;32(3):229–232.
  13. Vijayaraghavan NV, Padmanabhan TV, et al. The effect of additives and microwave oven drying on the compression strength of type IV dental stone. Indian J Multidiscip Dent 2011 Jul 1;1(6):306.
  14. Ali MA, Grimer FJ. Mechanical properties of glass fibre-reinforced gypsum. J Mater Sci 1969 May 1;4(5):389–395. DOI: 10.1007/BF00549703.
  15. Twomey JO, Abdelaziz KM, et al. Calcium hypochlorite as a disinfecting additive for dental stone. J Prosthet Dent 2003 Sep 1;90(3):282–288. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00412-8.
  16. Roy SM, Sridevi J, et al. An evaluation of the mechanical properties of Type III and Type IV gypsum mixed with two disinfectant solutions. Indian J Dent Res Off Publ Indian Soc Dent Res 2010 Sep;21(3):374–379. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.70807.
  17. Pramodh NR, Kumar CNV, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Tensile Strength in Die Stone Incorporated with Sodium and Calcium Hypochlorite as Disinfectants: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017 Dec 1;18(12):1185–1189. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2197.
  18. Silva MAB, da Vitti RP, et al. Linear dimensional change, compressive strength and detail reproduction in type IV dental stone dried at room temperature and in a microwave oven. J Appl Oral Sci Rev FOB 2012 Oct;20(5):588–593. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572012000500016.
  19. Tuncer N, Tufekçioglu HB, et al. Investigation on the compressive strength of several gypsum products dried by microwave oven with different programs. J Prosthet Dent 1993 Mar 1;69(3):333–339. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90116-6.
  20. Sharma A, Shetty M, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Tensile Strength of a Type IV Gypsum Using Microwave and Air Drying Methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013 Dec;13(4): 525–530. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0183-0.
  21. Kati FA, Yassin IN, et al. Effect of Adding some Additives and Drying Method on Compressive Strength of Gypsum Products. Tikrit J Dent Sci 2017 Apr 16;5(1):25–32.
  22. Jorgensen KD, Kono A. Relationship between the porosity and compressive strength of dental stone. Acta Odontol Scand 1971 Oct;29(4):439–447. DOI: 10.3109/00016357109026531.
  23. Prombonas A, Vlissidis D. Compressive strength and setting temperatures of mixes with various proportions of plaster to stone. J Prosthet Dent 1994 Jul;72(1):95–100. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90218-6.
  24. Yan M, Takahashi H. Effects of magnesia and potassium sulfate on gypsum-bonded alumina dental investment for high-fusing casting. Dent Mater J 1998 Dec;17(4):301–313. DOI: 10.4012/dmj. 17.301.
  25. Reza F, Tamaki Y, et al. Properties of a gypsum-bonded magnesia investment using a K2SO4 solution for titanium casting. Dent Mater J 2009 May;28(3):301–306. DOI: 10.4012/dmj. 28.301.
  26. Shen C, Mohammed H, et al. Effect of K2SO4 and CaSO4 Dihydrate Solutions on Crystallization and Strength of Gypsum. J Dent Res 1981 Aug 1;60(8):1410–1417. DOI: 10.1177/00220345810600080401.
  27. New American Dental Association Specification No. 25 for dental gypsum products. J Am Dent Assoc 1972 Mar;84(3):640–644.
  28. Abdelaziz KM, Combe EC, et al. The effect of disinfectants on the properties of dental gypsum: 1. Mechanical properties. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont 2002 Sep;11(3):161–167. DOI: 10.1053/jopr.2002.126860.
  29. Breault LG, Paul JR, et al. Die Stone Disinfection: Incorporation of Sodium Hypochlorite. J Prosthodont 1998 Mar 1;7(1):13–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.1998.tb00170.x.
  30. Stern MA, Johnson GH, et al. An evaluation of dental stones after repeated exposure to spray disinfectants. Part I: Abrasion and compressive strength. J Prosthet Dent 1991 May 1;65(5):713–718. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90211-E.
  31. De Cesero L, Mota EG, et al. The influence of postpouring time on the roughness, compressive strength, and diametric tensile strength of dental stone. J Prosthet Dent 2014 Dec;112(6):1573–1577. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.032.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.