Tensile Bond Strength between Custom Tray and Elastomeric Impression Material

Dimensional Stability and Retention Strength of Impressions to Custom Impression Trays Fabricated Using Conventional Method and Additive Technology - An In-vitro Study

BACKGROUND

3D printing technology is replacing manual fabrication in all fields. 3D-printed impression trays should be assessed as they could replace conventional impression trays in the future.

AIM

In-vitro comparison and evaluation of the dimensional stability and retention strength of impressions to custom impression trays fabricated using conventional method and additive technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary edentulous auto-polymerizing acrylic resin model served as the master model. Two moulds were prepared from the master model in order to obtain 12 casts. One cast was scanned for 3D printing digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modelling (FDM) 24 impression trays using polylactic acid (PLA). Twelve casts were used to fabricate light cure impression trays. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were made on the master model using 36 impression trays and 18 trays each were used to assess dimensional stability and retention strength.

RESULTS

In dimensional stability analysis, one sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between each group and the master model followed by a one-way ANOVA. There were significant differences, but the difference was less with FDM trays (P < 0.05). In retention strength analysis, one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed statistically significant difference between each group and post-hoc test revealed specific difference, the highest with FDM trays (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dimensional changes were observed at 30 minutes and 72 hours. Lesser dimensional changes were observed when impressions were made using FDM trays followed by DLP and light cure trays. The mean retention strength seen in descending order was FDM, followed by DLP and light cure trays. The best retention strength was noticed when impressions were made using FDM trays.

Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials-A Laboratory Peel-off Study

Computer-aided design (CAD) and additive manufacturing (AM) have shown promise in facilitating the fabrication of custom trays. Due to the clinical requirements, custom tray materials should achieve good bonding to the impression/adhesive systems. This study evaluated the retention of three fused deposition modeling (FDM) custom tray materials to a silicone impression/adhesive system before and after gritblasting (GB) by peel-off test. CAD-designed experimental test blocks were printed by FDM using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolyester (PETG), and high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and the reference test blocks were made of a conventional light-curing resin (n = 11). Before and after GB, the surface topography of all tray materials was analysed, and the maximum strength of the test block peeled off from a silicone impression/adhesive system was measured. After GB, the arithmetic mean height (Sa) and the valley fluid retention index (Svi) of the four material groups declined (p < 0.05). The peel-off strength of each of the four material groups significantly decreased by GB (p < 0.05), but no statistical difference could be found among them before or after GB. In all peel-off tests, adhesive failure occurred at the adhesive-impression material interface. The results indicated ABS, HIPS, and PETG could provide sufficient adhesion to the adhesive as the conventional light-curing resin, and GB could reduce the roughness generated by FDM and weaken the bonding between the adhesive and the silicone impression.

Dimensional accuracy of stone casts made from silicone-based impression materials and three impression techniques

The aim of this study was to measure and compare the dimensional accuracy of stone casts of a partially edentulous mandibular arch made by two condensation silicones, two addition silicones and three impression techniques (1-step putty/light-body, 2-step putty/light-body and monophase technique). A partially edentulous standard stainless steel mandibular arch cast was obtained with reference points on the permanent mandibular right and left canines, and permanent mandibular right and left second molars. The anteroposterior distances (between the mandibular left canine and second molar and between the mandibular right canine and second molar) and transverse distances (between the mandibular left and right canines and between the mandibular left and right second molars) of stainless steel cast were measured by a microscope at 30× magnification and 0.5 µm accuracy. All impressions were made with condensation or addition silicones. The 1- and 2-step putty/light-body impressions were accomplished with putty and light-body materials and the monophase impressions with light-body material only. After the impression procedures, accuracy of each material and technique was assessed measuring the stone casts poured (n=5) from the impressions, by the same microscope. The differences between the values of stone cast and stainless steel cast were calculated, presented as percentages and analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA and the means compared by Tukey's test (α=0.05). All distances measured on stone casts showed altered dimensions with significantly negative linear changes (shrinkage) as compared to those of the stainless steel cast. The stone casts made from the addition silicones were dimensionally more accurate. No differences were found among the impression techniques.

An in vitro study of the bond strength of five adhesives used for vinyl polysiloxane impression materials and tray materials

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. The mention of the bond strength on the adhesive packaging is not available, therefore the clinician has no idea whatsoever of the ideal adhesive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of three vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) materials, one with a poly(methyl methacrylate) autopolymerizing (PMMA) specimen and another with a light-polymerizing tray material (VLC), using the adhesive recommended by the manufacturer of the impression material, and two universal adhesives. A total of ninety specimens (15 × 15 × 20 mm) were used, 45 specimens were made in PMMA and rest 45 was made in VLC. Five paint-on adhesives (Coltene, Caulk, 3M, universal Zhermack and universal GC) were applied. Three impression materials, Affinis, Reprosil, and 3M, were mixed and injected into a perforated poly vinyl chloride cylinder. Tray specimens were positioned against the open cylinder end in contact with the VPS material. Tensile strength tests were conducted until adhesive separation failure. Mean values and standard errors of the adhesive strength were recorded in MPa for each material combination. GC paint-on universal adhesive provided significantly higher adhesive strength values.