Journal Article10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60116-4
Surface detail reproduction under simulated pulpal pressure: a 3-dimensional optical profilometer and scanning electron microscopy evaluation.
1
TL;DR: The hydrophobic and hydrophilic impression materials tested showed similar ability to reproduce detail under simulated pulpal pressure, and Polyurethane-based cast material successfully reproduced the surface texture.
read more
Abstract: Statement of problem It is not clear whether more hydrophilic impression materials are better able to copy and transfer dentin surface detail than less hydrophilic ones. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproduction of dentin surface detail by means of hydrophobic and hydrophilic elastomeric impression materials under simulated pulpal pressure and their ability to transfer surface detail onto casts produced from such impressions. Material and methods The wettability of the impression materials (n=8) was determined by contact angle measurement with an evolution period of 135 seconds. Dentin moisture was provided by means of pulpal pressure simulation, and objective analyses were performed by measuring the average roughness value (Ra) with a 3-D optical profilometer (n=10). One specimen from each group was analyzed with scanning electron microscopy. Contact-angle values were analyzed with a repeated measures ANOVA, and detail reproduction was tested with 3-way ANOVA (α=.05). The Bonferroni correction was used to control Type I error for follow-up analyses. Results Contact angle measurements revealed significant differences depending on the impression material used and time of the measurement ( P P >.013). The hydrophobic impression material showed similar detail reproduction ability in a dry field, but loss of detail (evaluated subjectively) and increased roughness values (evaluated objectively) were recorded in a moisturized field ( P =.004). Polyurethane-based cast material successfully reproduced the surface texture ( P ≥.006), whereas Type IV gypsum material was unable to reproduce this texture to the same extent. Conclusions The hydrophilic impression materials tested showed similar ability to reproduce detail under simulated pulpal pressure. Polyurethane-based cast material successfully reproduced the surface texture.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Influence of simulated pulpal pressure on efficacy of bleaching gels.
Alessandra Bühler Borges,Graziela Ribeiro Batista,Paula Tamião Arantes,Annette Wiegand,Thomas Attin,Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres +5 more
TL;DR: It was concluded that all bleaching gels showed bleaching efficacy compared to non-bleached group and that the simulated pulpal pressure did not Influence the bleaching outcomes of the tested gels.
References
•Book
Phillips' Science of Dental Materials
Kenneth J. Anusavice
- 01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The science of dental materials is studied in detail in the context of toothpastes, using X-ray diffraction analysis for the determination of particle numbers.
2.7K
•Book
Dental Materials and Their Selection
William J. O'Brien
- 10 Jan 2009
TL;DR: Fundamental principles of material science are closely integrated with everyday dental practice in the newly revised edition of this classic textbook and the authors show how to apply the framework of materialscience to restorative treatment plans.
852
Effect of simulated pulpal pressure on dentin permeability and adhesion of self-etch adhesives.
Salvatore Sauro,Salvatore Sauro,David H. Pashley,Marco Montanari,Stefano Chersoni,Ricardo M. Carvalho,Manuel Toledano,Raquel Osorio,Franklin R. Tay,Franklin R. Tay,Carlo Prati +10 more
TL;DR: HEMA-based adhesives showed the largest reductions in bond strengths after pulpal pressure application, while Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited the lowest permeability and fewest numbers of fluid droplets over the surface of the bonded dentin.
196
Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions
TL;DR: Dimensional accuracy of both materials tested was well within ADA standards, and best surface detail results were obtained only under dry conditions for both materials.
109
Wettability of a hydrophilic addition silicone impression material.
TL;DR: The wettability of the hydrophilic addition silicone impression material was found to be not significantly different from that of a polyether impression material.
106