托盘粘接剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同粗糙度托盘材料间结合强度的影响

目的：研究托盘粘接剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同粗糙度的托盘材料间结合强度的影响。方法：2种托盘材料：自凝树脂和不锈钢;分3种粗糙度：45目,220目,400目加自然表面分成4大组;每种材料每种粗糙度各分2组,一组涂布粘接剂,另一组不涂布,总计16组,每组6个试件,共96个试件。采用GC公司的加成型硅橡胶印模材料和专用粘接剂。拉力测试,所得数据用SAS软件进行统计分析。结果：在所有托盘材料中,都显示应用粘接剂的那组具有更高的结合强度（P〈0.05）。使用粘接剂前,托盘材料对结合强度的影响具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。使用粘接剂前后,托盘材料的表面粗糙度对结合强度的影响都具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：应用托盘粘接剂能改善加成型硅橡胶印模材料和托盘的结合强度。应用粘接剂前,不同托盘材料对结合强度有影响,自凝树脂大于不锈钢材料。在应用粘接剂情况下,结合强度随托盘表面粗糙度的增加而增加。没有应用粘接剂时,则需要把托盘粗糙到一定程度才可以增加结合强度。     

托盘粘结剂对硅橡胶印模材料与托盘材料间粘结强度的影响

目的：研究托盘粘结剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同托盘材料间粘结强度的影响。方法：分别选用GC和3M二种硅橡胶,托盘材料为不锈钢和自凝塑料,托盘粘结剂为GC和3M公司提供的专用粘结剂,进行交互使用,不涂粘结剂的作为对照组,共12组。各组均为6个样本。印模材料的调和按厂商说明进行,注入专门的测试装置中。等印模材料完全凝固后,把整个装置连接到万能测力仪上进行拉力测试,以5mm／min的速度拉伸直到粘附脱落。所得数据用SAS软件进行统计分析。结果：托盘粘结剂的使用能显著提高硅橡胶印模与托盘的粘结强度（P〈0．01）。在不使用托盘粘结剂时,不同托盘之间的粘接强度差异无统计学意义（P=0．1559）;且不同托盘材料与不同硅橡胶印模材料间无交互影响作用（P=0．8226）。无论使用哪种硅橡胶印模材料或哪种托盘材料,应用GC托盘粘结剂组的粘结强度均高于3M托盘粘结剂组（P〈0．01）。结论：临床取模过程中在托盘表面应用粘接剂能有效的改善硅橡胶印模材料和托盘的粘接强度,从而提高印模的精确性。不同厂家提供的专用粘结剂可交互使用。     

表面处理对托盘材料与加聚型硅橡胶结合强度的影响

目的研究喷砂及涂布粘结剂对不同托盘材料与硅橡胶结合强度的影响。方法制作不锈钢、自凝树脂、光固化树脂标准试件各40个,随机分组,每组同材质试件各10个,空白组:对试件不做处理;喷砂组:对试件进行喷砂处理;粘结剂组:对试件涂布托盘粘结剂;喷砂+粘结剂组:对试件喷砂后涂布粘结剂处理,与硅橡胶材料在测试装置中接触结合,行拉伸实验,记录结果,计算结合强度。结果 3种托盘材料均在喷砂加粘结剂处理时表现出最佳的结合强度;单独使用喷砂时,树脂材质托盘结合强度与空白组相比明显提高,而不锈钢托盘结合强度却下降明显;单独使用粘结剂时,与空白组相比,3种材质托盘结合强度均有显著提高。结论联合使用喷砂和粘结剂可显著提高托盘与硅橡胶结合强度,对树脂材料托盘单独使用粘结剂或喷砂有一定增加托盘结合强度的作用,金属托盘使用粘结剂亦可增加托盘结合强度。     

不同树脂粘接剂对渗透陶瓷粘接强度的影响

目的观察比较不同树脂粘接剂对氧化铝渗透陶瓷粘接剪切强度的效果。方法选择无龋坏的人离体磨牙40颗,处理后随机分为4组,每组10件。A组用Solobond Plus粘接剂＋Bifix QM粘接剂,B组用Fu—turabondDC粘接剂＋BifixQM粘接剂,C组用BifixSE自酸蚀树脂粘接剂,D组用PanaviaF双重聚合型粘接材料。所有样本在37℃蒸馏水中储存24h后进行测试,记录剪切强度值,用SAS6．12统计软件对结果进行单因素方差分析。结果PanaviaF双重聚合型粘接材料组的剪切强度显著高于其他3组（P〈0．01）,BifixSE自酸蚀树脂粘接剂组的剪切强度最小。结论PanaviaF双重聚合型粘接材料用于氧化铝渗透陶瓷可获得较好的粘接效果,值得在临床上推广。     

可卸式托盘消毒、清洁、材料溢出的研究

目的比较不同孔数和孔径的可卸式托盘（添加了金属底层）与传统托盘的消毒、清洁效果及材料溢出情况。方法将40个同样型号（2号）的托盘分为8组,每组5个。1组为44孔,孔径2.60mm的传统式托盘。另7组为不同孔数和孔径的可卸式托盘：44孔,孔径为2.60mm;32孔,孔径分别为3.00mm、3.50mm、4.00mm;29孔,孔径分别为3.00mm、3.50mm、4.00mm。计数每组托盘消毒后细菌培养的菌落数,称量取模后的残余印模材料量和溢出量,对所得数据进行统计分析。结果①各组均无细菌生长;②当可卸式托盘孔数和孔径增加到一定程度时,残余印模材料量明显增加,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;③传统托盘溢出量较少,随着可卸式托盘孔数和孔径增加,溢出量增加,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论一定孔数和孔径的可卸式托盘比传统托盘溢出更均匀,较不易脱模。     

��̻�������֬���������в�ճ��ʵ���о�

目的探讨Esthet—X Flow光固化流体树脂粘接正畸托槽的效果。方法收集2012年1月至2012年2月在中国医科大学口腔医院颌面外科因正畸需要拔除的上颌第一前磨牙30颗,随机等分为3组：实验Ⅰ组应用Esthet—X Flow光固化流体树脂及Prime＆Bond NT粘接剂粘接托槽;实验Ⅱ组仅应用Esthet—X Flow光固化流体树脂粘接托槽;对照组应用京津釉质粘接剂粘接托槽。测试各组的抗剪切强度,并在光学显微镜下观察粘接剂残留情况。结果实验Ⅰ、Ⅱ组的抗剪切强度均明显低于对照组（P〈0．05）,而实验Ⅰ、Ⅱ组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,且抗剪切强度均大于9MPa,达到了临床应用标准。各组间粘接剂残留指数差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论单独应用Esthet—X Flow光固化流体树脂可满足临床粘接托槽的要求。     

冷热循环对不同金属与树脂粘接剂粘接强度的影响

目的：冷热循环对不同金属与树脂粘接剂粘接强度的影响。方法：铸造直径分别为4mm和5mm的镍铬合金和纯钛,切割成长度为3mm的标本。2种规格的同种金属标本配对,金属表面经50μmAlzO3喷砂,涂布Al—loy Primer,使用Super—BondC＆B和PanaviaF2种粘接剂粘接。固化后经37℃恒温水浴24h以及10000次冷热循环,测试剪切粘接强度。用spssl7．0统计软件进行统计分析。结果：10000次冷热循环后,镍铬合金与Super—BondC＆B、纯钛与PanaviaF粘接强度显著提高（P〈O．01）,其余各组没有统计学差异。结论：粘接剂的种类对冷热循环前后的粘接强度没有明显影响,金属的种类对冷热循环前后的粘接强度没有明显影响,但是不同金属和不同粘接剂的配伍组合在冷热循环前后的粘接强度变化有统计学意义。     

一步法自酸蚀粘接剂微拉伸粘接强度的研究

目的评价一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质微拉伸粘接强度，观察并分析样本断裂类型。方法选择新拔除的人无龋下颌第三磨牙12颗，分别用3种一步法、1种两步法的白酸蚀粘接剂进行牙本质粘接。用微拉伸测力仪测试粘接强度，并用体视显微镜和扫描电镜观察样本断裂类型。结果3种一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的微拉伸强度分别为：材料A（Adper Prompt）（23．36±2．55）MPa；材料B（Clearfil S^3 Bond）（30．46±3．82）MPa；材料C（Xenon Ⅲ）（34．59±3．46）MPa；1种两步法自酸蚀粘接剂材料D（Clearfil SE Bond）的微拉伸粘接强度为（45．06±5．29）MPa。材料D微拉伸粘接强度最高，与其他3组相比，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。样本断裂均发生于粘接界面，未观察到复合树脂或牙本质内聚破坏。结论一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接强度低于两步法白酸蚀粘接剂，但多数仍可满足临床对树脂粘接强度的要求。     

3D打印无牙颌个别托盘的初步研究

目的探讨3D打印无牙颌个别托盘较传统方法制作的个别托盘1是否能有效减少临床椅旁操作时间;2托盘印模面处理后与藻酸盐印模材间的固位强度比较和变化。方法 1选取全口义齿修复患者10例,上颌为A组,下颌为B组,记录3D打印法和传统方法(自凝丙烯酸树脂)制作个别托盘的椅旁工作时间;2测量3D打印托盘和传统托盘(光固化树脂和自凝丙烯酸树脂)的印模面3种情况下(以不处理、打孔和涂布托盘粘接剂)与藻酸盐印模材间的固位强度。结果 1A、B组3D打印法分别是34.37、28.19 min,传统法分别是64.95、63.94 min,3D打印无牙颌个别托盘的时间均显著少于传统法的时间(P<0.05);23D打印托盘表面涂粘接剂组固位强度为2.31 N/cm~2,为组内最佳(析因方差分析P<0.01)。结论 3D打印无牙颌个别托盘相对于传统方法可有效减少椅旁工作时间;与藻酸盐印模材间具有良好的固位强度,打孔及表面涂托盘粘接剂均可明显提高其固位强度,表面涂粘接剂效果更明显。     

三种非金属托槽抗剪切强度比较

目的 比较京津釉质粘接剂粘接三种非金属托糟的抗剪切强度，评估托槽去除后牙面残留粘接剂指数（adhesive remnant indexes，ARI），为临床合理选择非金属托槽提供指导。方法 60颗人类前磨牙随机均分为三组，用京津釉质粘接剂分别粘接陶瓷托槽、有机玻璃托槽和聚碳酸酯托槽，测定并记录其抗剪切强度和托槽去除后牙面残留粘接剂指数。结果 三种托槽的抗剪切强度和ARI记分情况均不全相同（P〈0.05），组间比较发现陶瓷托槽组与另两组间差别显著（P〈0．01），而有机玻璃组与聚碳酸酯组间无显著差别（P〉0．05）。结论 在应用京津釉质粘接剂粘接托槽时，陶瓷托槽的粘接强度足可以满足正畸临床矫治要求，而有机玻璃托槽和聚碳酸酯托槽的粘接强度较低以至不能满足正畸临床矫治要求，应谨慎使用。     

Drying time of tray adhesive for adequate tensile bond strength between polyvinylsiloxane impression and tray resin material

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Use of custom tray and tray adhesive is clinically recommended for elastomeric impression material. However there is not clear mention of drying time of tray adhesive in achieving appropriate bonding strength of tray material and impression material.

PURPOSE

This study is to investigate an appropriate drying time of tray adhesives by evaluating tensile bonding strength between two types of polyvinylsiloxane impression materials and resin tray, according to various drying time intervals of tray adhesives, and with different manufacturing company combination of impression material and tray adhesive.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adhesives used in this study were Silfix (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and VPS Tray Adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and impression materials were Aquasil Ultra (monophase regular set, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and Imprint II Garant (regular body, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). They were used combinations from the same manufacture and exchanged combinations of the two. The drying time was designed to air dry, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. Total 240 of test specimens were prepared by auto-polymerizing tray material (Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Il, USA) with 10 specimens in each group. The specimens were placed in the Universal Testing machine (Instron, model 3366, Instron Corp, University avenue, Nowood, MA, USA) to perform the tensile test (cross head speed 5 mm/min). The statistically efficient drying time was evaluated through ANOVA and Scheffe test. All the tests were performed at 95% confidence level.

RESULTS

The results revealed that at least 10 minutes is needed for Silfix-Aquasil, and 15 minutes for VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II, to attain an appropriate tensile bonding strength. VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength when compared to Silfix-Aquasil over 15 minutes. Silfix-Aquasil had a superior bonding strength to VPS Tray Adhesive-Aquasil, and VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength to Silfix-Imprint II at all drying periods.

CONCLUSION

Significant increase in tensile bonding strength with Silfix-Aquasil and VPS Tray adhesive-Imprint II combination until 10 and 15 minutes respectively. Tray adhesive-impression material combination from the same company presented higher tensile bonding strength at all drying time intervals than when using tray adhesive-impression material of different manufactures.     

The Bond Strength of Different Tray Adhesives on Vinyl Polysiloxane to Two Tray Materials: An In Vitro Study

There has been no established chemical bonding between custom tray resin and the elastomeric impression materials without the use of manufacturer’s recommended specific tray adhesive. The present study was aimed to compare the bond strength of the manufacturer recommended tray adhesives with the universal tray adhesives using the medium body consistency vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) material and custom tray made of autopolymerising resin and visible light cure (VLC) resin. A total 90 cubicle specimens of autopolymerising resin and 90 specimens of VLC resin were tested for its tensile bond strength. Effectiveness of universal tray adhesive was compared with manufactured tray adhesive. Each of these specimens was then subjected to tensile load in hounsefield universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 5 mm/min and the results were compared and evaluated using one way analysis of variance and post hoc Tuckey’s test. Analysis of bond strength revealed that the universal tray adhesive showed better strength and was statiscally significant when compared to the manufacture supplied tray adhesive. Comparison between both the groups, VLC resin showed better bond strength as compared to autopolymerizing resin. Universal tray adhesive had better tensile bond strength than the manufacturers recommended tray adhesive with the medium body viscosity VPS impression material for both autopolymerising and VLC tray resin.     

The effect of different adhesives on vinyl polysiloxane bond strength to two tray materials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although stock trays often provide mechanical retention for elastomeric impression materials, manufacturers typically recommend the use of an adhesive, whether a stock or custom tray is used. Universal adhesives for vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) are used in practice, but comparative bond strengths have not been reported. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond of 3 VPS materials with a methylmethacrylate autopolymerizing and a light-polymerizing tray material, using the adhesive recommended by the manufacturer of the impression material, and 2 universal adhesives (paint-on and spray-on). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten specimens per group, for a total of 180 flat 15 x 15 x 20-mm specimens, were made from the 2 tray materials and finished to 320 grit with silicon carbide paper. Four paint-on adhesives (Coltene, Caulk, Kerr VPS, or universal VPS) and 1 spray-on adhesive (Sili Spray) were applied and dried following manufacturers' instructions or for 10 minutes. Three impression materials, Affinis, Aquasil, and Take I, were automixed and injected into a perforated cylinder positioned in a universal testing machine. Tray specimens were positioned against the open cylinder end in contact with the VPS material. Tensile tests (cross-head speed 5 mm/min) were conducted until adhesive separation failure. Mean values and standard errors of the adhesive strength were recorded in MPa for each material combination. Data were first analyzed with Welch analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine overall significance, and then with a 3-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test to make pairwise comparisons, with alpha=.05 for all testing. RESULTS: For all impression materials tested, the universal spray-on adhesive consistently demonstrated significantly lower bond strengths than all other adhesives (P<.05). Equivalent or significantly (P<.05) higher bond strength values were found for the universal paint-on adhesive for the 3 impression materials tested. CONCLUSION: The use of GC paint-on universal adhesive provided significantly higher adhesive values than those obtained with the adhesives supplied by the manufacturers of the impression materials tested, with the exception of the Kerr impression and adhesive material combination where no significant differences were found.     

Disinfection effect of dental impression tray adhesives

Objectives

Iatrogenic infections are serious problems in dental offices. Impression tray adhesives are delivered in glass containers with a fixed brush attached inside the cap. Using the brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on a contaminated impression tray or prostheses, pathogen transmission by replacing the cap with the brush is possible.

Materials and methods

Bacterial strains (patient strains and in vitro strains) were supervaccinated on Columbia agar. The bacterial solution was diluted with TSB and aerobically grown, and starting concentration was 1?×?10⁷ cfu/ml. The stock solution was placed on Columbia agar. Alginate, polyether, and silicon impression tray adhesives were applied to the center of the particular blood agar plates and incubated for 48 h. The expansion of the inhibition zone assays were measured using a microscope.

Results

Twenty-one different bacterial strains were selected in the saliva samples of 20 patients. The growth inhibition for alginate impression tray adhesive was 1.1 % (±0.3) of the patient strains. The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 30.6 % (±9.3) and for silicon impression tray adhesive 11.8 % (±5.0). In in vitro strains, alginate impression tray adhesive performed an inhibition of 0.7 % (±0.3). The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 7.0 % (±1.6) and for silicon impression tray adhesive was 6.5 % (±1.3).

Conclusions

Using the fixed brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on multiple patients, a cross-contamination cannot be ruled out.

Clinical relevance

An application of the impression tray adhesive with a pipette and a single-use brush would eliminate the contamination.     

Peel bond strength between 3D printing tray materials and elastomeric impression/adhesive systems: A laboratory study

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the bonding between three 3D printed custom tray materials and three elastomeric impression/adhesive systems using the peel test.MethodsTest blocks were 3D printed by three different technologies using Dental LT, FREEPRINT tray, and polylactide (PLA) tray materials. The reference test blocks were conventionally fabricated with Zeta Tray LC, a light-curing resin. The surface topographies of the four tray materials were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses and roughness measurements. The peel bond strength between the four tray materials and three impression/adhesive systems, vinylsiloxanether (VSXE), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE), was measured (n = 12 per group). The peeling failure modes and rupture sites were identified microscopically.ResultsThe four tray materials featured different surface topographies. The peel bond strength was not significantly different with VSXE and PE, but PLA and the reference showed higher peel bond strength with VPS than the Dental LT and FREEPRINT tray (p < 0.05). The rupture site of adhesive failure in all groups was partly at the adhesive-impression material interface and partly within the adhesive but never at the adhesive-tray material interface.SignificanceThe 3D printed tray materials can achieve satisfactory chemical compatibility with the adhesives of VSXE, VPS, and PE. Surface topographies generated by the 3D printing technologies may affect bonding. Generally, 3D printed tray materials can provide clinically adequate bond strength with the elastomeric impression/adhesive systems. PLA is recommended for bonding with VPS when severe impression removal resistance is detected.     

Visual observation of the dynamic flow of elastomer rubber impression material between the impression tray and oral mucosa while seating the impression tray

The purpose of this study was to inspect visually, the dynamics of the impression flow at seating of the impression tray. The effects of the relief and the escape hole of the impression tray on the impression flow were also examined. Three types of the transparent impression tray (flat tray, relief tray and escape hole tray) were prepared. Transparent silicone polymer was put on the impression tray surface. Four drops of the dark blue silicone impression material was injected into the transparent silicone polymer on the impression tray. The impression tray was seated on the model of the denture-supporting mucosa. The movement of the four drops caused by the impression flow was visually recorded with the video camera and examined. The result for the flat tray showed that the impression material moved from inside to the outside. It was also shown that the speed of the moved impression material increased as the seating of the impression tray advanced. The results for the relief tray and the escape hole tray showed the effect of the relief and the escape hole prepared to the impression tray on the speed and the direction of the flow of the impression material.     

Pressure Produced on the Residual Maxillary Alveolar Ridge by Different Impression Materials and Tray Design: An In Vivo Study

Increased ridge resorption may occur due to inappropriate pressure applied during final impression making phase of complete denture fabrication. This study was done to evaluate the pressure applied on the residual ridge while making impressions with two tray designs (with and without spacer) using, zinc oxide eugenol and light body polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Five edentulous subjects were randomly selected. For each of the five subjects four maxillary final impressions were made and were labelled as, Group A-Impression made with tray without spacer using zinc oxide eugenol impression, Group B-Impression made with tray with spacer using zinc oxide eugenol impression material, Group C-Impression made with tray without spacer using light body polyvinyl siloxane impression material, Group D-Impression made with tray with spacer using light body polyvinyl siloxane impression material. During the impression procedure a closed hydraulic system was used to remotely measure the pressures produced in three areas. The pressure produced were calibrated according to the micro strain record. Statistical comparisons of readings were done using t test and ANOVA. The acquired data revealed that ZOE produced an average pressures value of 26.534 and 72.05 microstrain, while light body PVS produced 11.430 and 37.584 microstrain value with and without spacer respectively. Significantly high values were recorded on the vault of the palate when using trays without spacer. The use of light body polyvinyl siloxane and zinc oxide eugenol impression material showed insignificant difference. Within the limitations of this study, tray design has a significantly effected on the pressures produced, while the impression materials does not have any significant difference.     

Peel bond strengths of five impression material tray adhesives

The peel bond strengths of five impression materials and their tray adhesives to a perforated and non-perforated test surface were measured and the results were compared using a one-way ANOVA and Student Newman Keuls Multiple Range Test at p less than or equal to .05 level of significance. The auto-mix addition reaction silicone material Extrude produced the greatest peel bond strengths on both the non-perforated test surface (10.88 kg/cm2), and on the perforated test surface (15.88 kg/cm2). These bond strengths were greater than those obtained from the polysulphide and polyether materials used in the study. Using the perforated test surface significantly increased the peel bond strength for all the materials tested. It was concluded that in order to achieve the maximum adhesive bond, impression trays should be perforated. The greatest peel bond strengths were obtained using Extrude medium-body impression material.