Cronicon1775 Citation: Hitendra R Jain., et al. “Comparison of Effect of Different Drying Time Intervals of Tray Adhesives on Tensile Bond Strength between Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression

CroniconO P E N A C C E S S EC DENTAL SCIENCE

Research Article

Comparison of Effect of Different Drying Time Intervals of Tray Adhesives on Tensile Bond Strength between Polyvinyl Siloxane

Impression Material and Tray MaterialSurabhi Rikhy1, Rajashree D Jadhav1 and Hitendra R Jain2*1Bharati Vidhyapeeth Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India2Department of Public Health Dentistry, S.M.B.T Dental College and Hospital, Maharashtra, India

*Corresponding Author: Hitendra R Jain, Department of Public Health Dentistry, S.M.B.T Dental College and Hospital, Maharashtra, India.

Citation: Hitendra R Jain., et al. “Comparison of Effect of Different Drying Time Intervals of Tray Adhesives on Tensile Bond Strength between Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material and Tray Material”. EC Dental Science 17.10 (2018): 1774-1782.

Received: August 08, 2018; Published: September 28, 2018

Abstract

Keywords: Tray Adhesive; Impression; Drying Time; Tensile Bond Strength; Polyvinyl Siloxane

Introduction

Introduction: Several studies determined the bonding strength of tray adhesives between impression materials and tray resin ma-terials. The exact time for drying the tray adhesives before impression making is also not known. Manufactures recommend from 5 to 20 minutes per tray adhesives to dry completely. Controversy results are reported regarding to this recommended time.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different drying time intervals of tray adhesives on tensile bond strength between polyvinyl silox-ane impression material and tray material. Results: The study showed that the tensile bond strength with the use Universal tray adhesive was better than the manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive in all respects except that in manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive was found to be effective only with Group A of Category A with 10 minutes of drying time of the adhesive whereas, in Group E with 30 minutes of drying time interval there was significant decline in the bond strength. In case of universally supplied tray adhesive no significant change was seen. Conclusions: At all-time intervals the universal tray adhesive bond strength was more compared to the manufacturer supplied tray adhesive. The optimal time for maximum bond strength varies according to the chemistry of adhesive agent and surface chemistry of tray type.

The Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials are addition silicone elastomers which were introduced in the 1970’s. Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials have their applications in fixed prosthodontics, conservative dentistry and endodontics, removable prosthodontics and implant dentistry [1,2]. They provide excellent detailed surface reproduction, dimensional stability, elastic recovery and ease of ma-nipulation [3].

Accurate registration of oral structures requires an impression material which gives faithful reproduction of tissue details. The im-pression tray are equally important, as they carry, confine, control the impression material and support it by the means of bonding or attaching the set material to the tray material [4]. This procedure requires the use of a custom tray which can be made from a number of materials including auto-polymerizing acrylic resin, photo-polymerizing acrylic resin, thermoplastic resin or putty viscosity impression material [5].

When acrylic resin trays are used, its recommended that a tray adhesive should be applied to the tray as to securely attach the impres-sion to the tray material before making impressions and also to ensure the bonding between the impression material and the tray material with the direction of polymerizing shrinkage should always be towards the tray.

There is little information available regarding adhesive composition of the adhesives for elastomeric impression materials [6]. More accurate and consistent impressions are obtained when adhesives are employed [7-10]. Each class of elastomeric impression materials has its own specific adhesives for application on impression trays. The tray adhesives recommended for silicone impression materials are

1775


Various other authors have studied the tensile bond strength of elastomeric impression material to a custom tray material with the help of an adhesive and all recommended adhesive drying time of 15 minutes prior to impression material loading. Cho., et al. [16] re-ported that the tray adhesives should be applied at least 7 minutes before making impressions. Dixon., et al. [12] described the bonding strength between the trayutes adhesive and tray material to be the greatest at 48 hours after application. In the study by Davis., et al. [12], results presented the drying time of the tray adhesive did not affect the bonding strength between 15 minutes to 72 hours after applica-tion. However, within 15 minutes of application the bonding strength was reduced, so it was not recommended to make impressions 15 minutes before application.

Materials and Methods

Both manufacturer recommended tray adhesives and universal tray adhesives are available these days. Most of the clinicians use adhesives provided with the respective addition silicon impression material. However, when the adhesive provided by the manufacturer is exhausted, there is a tendency to use universal vinylpolysiloxane adhesives. Though many of the manufacturers recommend their universal tray adhesive can be used with any brand of vinylpolysiloxane impression material, there are not many studies to support this view. Several studies determined the bonding strength of tray adhesives between impression materials and tray resin materials [6-8,10-15]. However, bonding strength was not mentioned there. The exact time for drying the tray adhesives before impression making is also not known [14]. Manufactures recommend from 5 to 20 minutes per tray adhesives to dry completely. Controversy results are reported regarding to this recommended time.

Samman and Fletcher [12] found that 10 minutes was an optimum dying time for silicone material. Universal adhesives are commer-cially available, but investigators have hardly revealed the bond strength data of such products with VPS impression material and tray materials [17]. To withstand the forces and stresses generated during the removal of set impression from the oral cavity, there must not be partial or inadequate adhesion of impression material to the custom tray. Otherwise the impression material will be pulled away or separated from the tray.

composed of poly (dimethyl-siloxane) and ethyl silicate. Poly (dimethyl-siloxane) adheres to the silicone impression material, whereas ethyl silicate forms hydrated silica that bonds with tray material physically leading to an accurate and consistent impression.

Although the strength of various impression materials and adhesive systems has been studied, but only little is known about the length of time required to allow the tray adhesives to dry before impressions are made. Hence this study was undertaken to test the tensile bond strength of commercially available Polyvinylsiloxane - medium body impression material and auto-polymerizing resin tray material with different drying time intervals after the application of manufacture’s supplied tray adhesive and the universal tray adhesive.

Total 100 samples comprising of PVC (Polyvinyl - chloride) cylinder with dimensions 15mm x 25mm loaded with acrylic resin mate-rial and another loaded with polyvinyl siloxane impression material-medium body (Figure 1). Samples have been subdivided into two categories each of 50 samples - category A (Manufacturer’s suppled tray adhesive - Dentsply) and category B (Universally supplied tray adhesive - Zhermack) and each of them consist of five groups each of 10 sample namely Groups A, B, C, D and E respectively based on time dependent drying time intervals of 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes respectively.

Comparison of Effect of Different Drying Time Intervals of Tray Adhesives on Tensile Bond Strength between Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material and Tray Material

1776


Figure 1: Total 100 samples comprising of PVC (Polyvinyl - chloride) cylinder with dimensions 15 mm x 25mm loaded with acrylic resin material and another loaded with polyvinyl siloxane impression material-medium body.

The cylinders were placed on an evenly flat surface and while loading the materials, slight tapping was required to ensure a flat, smoothened testing side of the open cylinders, act as the base. Two of the holes were made in one direction so as to pierce the nail through them for extra hold of the material within the cylinder and to aid in better mechanical retention of the VPS impression material. While loading the materials in the cylinders, just before the two materials undergo polymerization, the curved hooks were placed in position centrally to the non-working/testing sides of the cylinders and secured in place until polymerization is completed (Figure 2). The surfaces of the testing/working side of the sample i.e. of the cylinders were made rough using sandpaper of 100 grit particle size.

After the application of the respective tray adhesives in each of the groups in categories A and B; the testing/working side where the adhesives were applied was kept aside to be air dried according to the different drying time intervals before alignment of the samples with the universal testing machine (Figure 3). The machine starts to pull the sample (which comprised of one cylinder loaded with acrylic tray material and another with mono-phase polyvinyl-siloxane impression medium body material away from each other; having tray

Figure 2: Polymerization the hooks and the nail are placed at the center in order to retain them in position to finally get attached to the universal testing machine.


1777


adhesive applied in between them) till they de-bond. Once the de-bonding of each sample was accomplished, the maximum load and the bond strengths (recorded via computerized, software based) were noted carefully for each of the samples respectively in each group as well as the categories SPSS Inc. Released 2007. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. Chicago, SPSS Inc software was used to analyse the data. Statistical analysis was done by using tools of descriptive statistics such as Mean, and SD for representing quantitative data (e.g. tensile bond strength in mpa).

Figure 3: ACME Engineers, India Universal testing machine to check the tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impression material and tray material. The non-working sides of the sample was attached to the machine.

Student- t test was used to compare means of measurements of tensile bond strength among manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive and universal tray adhesive in respect to mean tensile bond strength at different drying time intervals (Group A-10 minute, Group B -15 minute, Group C- 20 minute, Group D -25 minute, Group E - 30 minute) respectively at each interval (Inter-group mean comparison).

One-way ANOVA- F test was applied to compare mean tensile bond strength between the polyvinyl siloxane material and resin tray material using different drying time intervals of manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive and Universal tray adhesive respectively. Prob-ability of p < 0.05, considered as significant as alpha error set at 5% with confidence interval of 95% set in the study. Tukey’s Post hoc test analyses multiple pair -wise individual comparison of tensile bond strength at two different drying time interval each.


1778


Results

On comparison of mean tensile bond strength between the polyvinyl siloxane material and resin tray material using different drying time intervals of manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive using ANOVA F test, it was found that overall there exist no statistical significant difference in relation to tensile strength at different time intervals (10 to 30 minutes). On individual pair wise comparison using Tukey’s post -hoc test, it was found that there is significant decline in tensile bond strength at time interval of 30 minutes (Group E) drying time compared to tensile bond strength at time interval of 10 minutes (Group A) drying time for manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive (Table 1).

Drying time- manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive

Mean (MPa)

Std. Devia-tion

ANOVA F Value P Value Significance

Group A (10 Minutes) 0.134 0.018 2.457 0.059 Not SignificantGroup B (15 Minutes) 0.117 0.033Group C (20 Minutes) 0.120 0.023Group D (25 Minutes) 0.113 0.027Group E (30 Minutes) 0.098 0.025

*p < 0.05 - significant; ** p < 0.001 - highly significant.

ANOVA followed by Tukey’s Post-Hoc test (For multiple individual comparison)

Group Comparison Group Mean Difference (MPa) p value SignificanceGroup A Group B

Group C

Group D

Group E

0.017

0.014

0.021

0.036

0.598

0.753

0.389

0.028

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not Significant

SignificantGroup B Group C

Group D

Group E

0.003

0.004

0.019

0.999

0.997

0.491

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not SignificantGroup C Group D

Group E

0.007

0.022

0.975

0.343

Not Significant

Not SignificantGroup D Group E 0.015 0.704 Not Significant

*p < 0.05 - significant; ** p < 0.001 - highly significant

Table 1: Comparison of mean tensile bond strength between the polyvinyl siloxane material and resin tray material using different drying time intervals of manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive (Group A-10 minute, Group B- 15 minute, Group C- 20 minute, Group D- 25 minute, Group E- 30 minute) using ANOVA F test.

On comparison of mean tensile bond strength between the polyvinyl siloxane material and resin tray material using different drying time intervals of Universal tray adhesive using ANOVA F test, it was found that overall there exist no statistical significant difference in relation to tensile strength at different time intervals (10 to 30 minutes). On individual pair wise comparison using Tukey’s post -hoc test, it was found that there exist no statistical significant difference between any of multiple pairwise comparison among time intervals based sub groups in Universal tray adhesive (Table 2).


1779


Drying Time-Universal Tray Adhesive

Mean (MPa)

Std. Deviation

ANOVA F Value P Value Significance

Group A (10 Minutes) 0.132 0.029 0.135 0.968 Not significantGroup B (15 Minutes) 0.131 0.020Group C (20 Minutes) 0.131 0.031Group D (25 Minutes) 0.125 0.020Group E (30 Minutes) 0.127 0.026


ANOVA followed by Tukey’s Post-Hoc test (For multiple individual comparison)

Group Comparison Group Mean Difference p value SignificanceGroup A Group B

Group C

Group D

Group E

0.001

0.001

0.007

0.005

1.000

1.000

0.974

0.993

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not SignificantGroup B Group C

Group D

Group E

0.000

0.006

0.004

1.000

0.985

0.997

Not Significant

Not Significant

Not SignificantGroup C Group D

Group E

0.006

0.004

0.985

0.997

Not Significant

Not SignificantGroup D Group E 0.002 1.000 Not Significant


Table 2: Comparison of mean tensile bond strength between the polyvinyl siloxane material and resin tray material using different drying time intervals of universal tray adhesive (Group A- 10 minute, Group B -15 minute, Group C- 20 minute, Group D -25 minute, Group E - 30 minute) using ANOVA F test.

On comparison of manufacturer supplied tray adhesive and universal tray adhesive in respect to mean tensile bond strength at dif-ferent drying time intervals (Group A- 10 minute, Group B- 15 minute, Group C- 20 minute, Group D- 25 minute, Group E - 30 minute) respectively, there was found to be no statistical difference among both types of adhesives at any drying time interval (10, 15, 20, 25, 30 minutes) (Table 3).

Accuracy is an important factor in choosing an impression material, but other factors were of equal importance in producing a work-able cast. The tensile strength is also an important parameter because it indicates the ability of material to withstand any separation of im-pression material from tray during removal from the mouth. Separation of set impression material from impression tray on removal from mouth may introduced in torsion errors. Use of adhesive helps to assure that the completed impression remain firmly attached to the tray upon removal from the mouth. An impression made in the custom tray where the adhesive used to help in providing more accurate casts.

Discussion


1780


Adhesive Type Mean (MPa) Std. Deviation Student t test P value, SignificanceGroup A (10 Minutes) Manufacturer 0.1340 0.018 0.860 Not Significant

Universal 0.1320 0.029

Group B (15 Minutes) Manufacturer 0.1170 0.033 0.271 Not Significant

Universal 0.1310 0.020Group C (20 Minutes) Manufacturer 0.1200 0.023 0.381 Not Significant

Universal 0.1310 0.031Group D (25 Minutes) Manufacturer 0.1130 0.027 0.289 Not Significant

Universal 0.1250 0.020Group E (30 Minutes) Manufacturer 0.0980 0.020 0.023 Not Significant

Universal 0.1270 0.026

Table 3: Comparison of manufacturer supplied tray adhesive and universal tray adhesive in respect to mean tensile bond strength at different drying time intervals (Group A- 10 minute, Group B- 15 minute, Group C- 20

minute, Group D- 25 minute, Group E- 30 minute) respectively.

Retention of the impression was related to the chemistry of the adhesive agents and to the surface chemistry of the resin tray material [13]. In this study when the Caulk adhesive were dried for 10 to 0minutes, bond strength showed a significant increase up to 15 minutes and a gradual decrease was observed till 30 minutes. With no adequate drying time, the adhesive didn’t completely react with the acrylic tray material which may lead to separation of set impression material from impression tray upon removal from mouth which may intro-duce distortion errors [6,17]. In this study when the universal tray adhesive was dried for 10 minutes to 30 minutes, bond strength in the study showed no significant increase or decrease. The mean tensile bond strength remained more or less the same from 10 minutes to 30 minutes. When the universal adhesive was dried for 10 to 15 minutes, bond strength showed a significant increase. This observation is in agreement with similar study which states that the drying time of less than 15 minutes would decrease the bond strength and was clinically inadvisable [6]. In this study when the Caulk adhesive was dried for 10 to 20 minutes showed slight decrease and when dried for 20 to 30 minutes, bond strength showed a significant decrease. This observation contradicts with the results of study [14] who concluded that drying times between 15 minutes and 72 hours, there was no significant change in bond strength of elastomer to tray material.

The cause for this decrease in the bond strength values was not clearly understood, as the bond strength of adhesive could be affected by time, temperature and humidity. When the universal tray adhesive was made to dry for 15 to30 minutes, bond strength was not af-fected. This observation is in agreement with a study, whereas drying time of 60 minutes in comparison to that of 15 minutes didn’t show significant gain in bond strength [18]. Within the limitations of this study, bond strength of universal adhesive (Zhermack) was higher as compared with manufacturer recommended tray adhesive (Caulk) at all drying time intervals - 15, 20, 25, 30 minutes except for 10 min-utes where the manufacturer recommended adhesive (Caulk) showed higher bond strength values comparatively.

This observation was in complete agreement with a similar study which stated that the bond strength of paint on universal adhesive provided significantly higher adhesive values than those adhesives supplied by manufacturer’s supplied tray adhesive [9]. In the observa-tion an agreement with a similar study was done which reports that the bond strength of universal adhesive provided was more effective than those adhesives supplied by manufacturer [15,18].


1781


The p-value in the study was not significant overall except during comparison of Group A (drying time of 10 minutes) to Group E (dry-ing time of 30 minutes). This P-value, (p = 0.028) indicates that there is significant decline in tensile bond strength at time interval of 30 minutes (Group E) drying time compared to tensile bond strength at time interval of 10 minutes (Group A) drying time. The retention and replication properties of the elastomeric impression material become significant when the impression is particularly rigid, tooth and tissue undercuts are present. In these situations excessive force may be required to remove the tray-impression material combination. In such situations, an adhesive relined custom tray was more beneficial.

In Caulk tray adhesive (adhesive 1), the nature of bond strength failure resin this study was primarily adhesive where failure occurred at the interface between the tray adhesive and tray resin. The adhesive was found adhering to the impression material surface indicating the weakest link was the interface between adhesive- resin materials. In Universal tray adhesive (adhesive 2), the mode of failure was cohesive where failure occurred within the body of adhesive it-self. Adhesive film patches were observed both on the tray surface and impression surfaces. The mechanism of adhesion of universal adhesive to addition reaction silicone was not described by manufacturer.

The bond strength values of universal tray adhesive were higher compared to the manufacturer recommended adhesive at intervals ranging from 10 minutes to 30 minutes of drying time. Also, maximum bond strength was achieved with manufacturer recommended adhesive was allowed to dry for 10 minutes. There was a gradual decrease in bond strength when manufacturer supplied adhesive was allowed to dry from 15 minutes and was least when allowed to dry for 30 minutes or longer.

Conclusion

The universal tray adhesive showed maximum bond strength when allowed to dry for 10 minutes. There was a gradual decrease in bond strength when universal tray adhesive was allowed to dry from 15 minutes and was least when allowed to dry for 25 minutes. There was a slight increase in bond strength after 30 minutes for the universal tray adhesive.

At all-time intervals the universal tray adhesive bond strength was more compared to the manufacturer supplied tray adhesive. The optimal time for maximum bond strength varies according to the chemistry of adhesive agent and surface chemistry of tray type.

Nil.

Acknowledgements

Nil.

Conflict of Interest

Bibliography

1. International Standards Organization. “Dental elastomeric impression material”. ISO 4823-1992. Section 5.11 Detail reproduction. Stand alone document. Chicago: American Dental Association Department of Standards Administration (1992).

2. Chee WW and Donovan TE. “Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials a review of properties and techniques”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 68.5 (1992): 728-732.

3. William J O’ and Brien WJ. “Dental materials. Properties and selection”. Chicago: Quintessence Books (1989).

4. Abdullah MA and Talic YF. “The effect of custom tray material type and fabrication technique on tensile bond strength of impression material adhesive systems”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 30.3 (2003): 312-317.

5. Eames WB., et al. “Elastomeric impression materials: effect of bulk on accuracy”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 41.3 (1979): 304-307.

6. Nicholson JW., et al. “Strength of tray adhesives for elastomeric impression materials”. Operative Dentistry 10.1 (1985): 12-16.


https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/617359/https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/617359/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1432791https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1432791https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12588506https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12588506https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/283231https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3883322

1782



Volume 17 Issue 10 October 2018© All rights reserved by Hitendra R Jain., et al.

7. Tjan AH and Whang SB. “Comparing effect of tray treatment on the accuracy of dies”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 58.2 (1987): 175-178.

8. Grant BE and Tjan AH. “Tensile and peel bond strengths of tray adhesives”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 59.2 (1988): 165-168.

9. Bomberg TJ., et al. “Considerations for adhesion of impression materials to impression trays”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 60.6 (1988): 681-684.

10. Sulong MZ and Setchell DJ. “Properties of the tray adhesive of an addition polymerizing silicone to impression tray materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 66.6 (1991): 743-747.

11. Sandrik JL and Vacco JL. “Tensile and bond strength of putty-wash elastomeric impression materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 50.3 (1983): 358-361.

12. Samman JM and Fletcher A. “A study of impression tray adhesives”. Quintessence International 16.4 (1985): 305-309.

13. Payne JA and Pereira BP. “Bond strength of two non-aqueous elastomeric impression materials bonded to two thermoplastic resin tray materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 74.6 (1995): 563-568.

14. Bindra B and Heath JR. “Adhesion of elastomeric impression materials to trays”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24.1 (1997): 63-69.

15. Ellam AH and Smith DC. “The relative effectiveness of adhesives for polysulphide impression materials”. British Dental Journal 120.3 (1966): 135-138.

16. Cho GC., et al. “Tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impressions bonded to a custom tray as a function of drying time: part I”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 73.5 (1995): 419-423.

17. Frazier KB. “The teaching of all ceramic restorations in North American dental schools: materials and techniques employed”. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry 9.2 (1997): 86-93.

18. Hogan WR and Agar JR. “The bond strength of elastomer tray adhesives to thermoplastic and acrylic resin tray materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 67.4 (1992): 541-543.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022391387901727https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022391387901727https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3278100https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3060600https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3060600https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1805022https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1805022https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6352923https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6352923https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3892569https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8778378https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8778378https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9049922https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5216382https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5216382https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7658389https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7658389https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9468857https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9468857https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1507140https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1507140

_GoBack_GoBack

Documents

Cronicon1775 Citation: Hitendra R Jain., et al. “Comparison of Effect of Different Drying Time Intervals of Tray Adhesives on Tensile Bond Strength between Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression