Contact angle of unset elastomeric impression materials.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Some elastomeric impression materials are hydrophobic, and it is often necessary to take definitive impressions of teeth coated with some saliva. New hydrophilic materials have been developed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare contact angles of water and saliva on 7 unset elastomeric impression materials at 5 time points from the start of mixing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two traditional polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) (Aquasil, Take 1), 2 modified PVS (Imprint 4, Panasil), a polyether (Impregum), and 2 hybrid (Identium, EXA'lence) materials were compared. Each material was flattened to 2 mm and a 5 µL drop of distilled water or saliva was dropped on the surface at 25 seconds (t0) after the start of mix. Contact angle measurements were made with a digital microscope at initial contact (t0), t1=2 seconds, t2=5 seconds, t3=50% working time, and t4=95% working time. Data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model analysis, and individual 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests (α=.05). RESULTS: For water, materials grouped into 3 categories at all time-points: the modified PVS and one hybrid material (Identium) produced the lowest contact angles, the polyether material was intermediate, and the traditional PVS materials and the other hybrid (EXA'lence) produced the highest contact angles. For saliva, Identium, Impregum, and Imprint 4 were in the group with the lowest contact angle at most time points. CONCLUSION: Modified PVS materials and one of the hybrid materials are more hydrophilic than traditional PVS materials when measured with water. Saliva behaves differently than water in contact angle measurement on unset impression material and produces a lower contact angle on polyether based materials.

Depth of cure of bulk fill composites with monowave and polywave curing lights.

PURPOSE: To measure and compare the depth of cure (DOC) of two bulk fill resin composites using a monowave and polywave light curing unit (LCU) according to ISO 4049 and using custom tooth molds. METHODS: The DOC of Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior were measured using a monowave LED LCU (Elipar S10) and a polywave LED LCU (Bluephase G2). Metal molds were used to fabricate 10 mm long DOC specimens (n = 10) according to ISO 4049. Uncured composite material was scraped away with a plastic instrument and half the length of remaining composite was measured as the DOC. Custom tooth molds were fabricated by preparing > 10 mm long square- shaped (4 x 4 mm) holes into the mesial/distal surfaces of extracted human molars. Resin composite was placed into one end of the prepared tooth and light polymerized. Uncured resin composite was removed from the opposite side from which the tooth was irradiated and the tooth was sectioned mesio-distally. Half the length of remaining cured composite was measured as the DOC. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05) for factors material, LCU, and mold. RESULTS: The main effect LCU was not significant (P = 0.58). The interaction effect between material x mold was significant (P = 0.0001). The DOC of the composites differed significantly only with the stainless steel mold in which Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill showed a deeper DOC than Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (4.03 ± 0.14 vs 3.56 ± 0.38 mm, P < 0.0001).

Influence of particle abrasion or hydrofluoric acid etching on lithium disilicate flexural strength.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Lithium disilicate is a translucent, glass-containing material used for ceramic restorations. Clinicians frequently use alumina abrading or hydrofluoric acid etching to create micromechanical retention in the intaglio surface before bonding a lithium disilicate restoration to the tooth. Few studies have investigated how the etching or abrasion processes affect the flexural strength of lithium disilicate ceramics. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the flexural strength of e.max CAD after alumina abrasion at differing pressures and acid etching at differing concentrations and times. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Bars of e.max CAD (9 groups of 10; 22×2.5×2.5 mm) were prepared, polished sequentially with 180, 320, and 600 abrasive paper, and sintered according to the manufacturer's instructions. Four groups were particle abraded (30-µm alumina particles from 10 mm at 55, 100, 200, or 300 kPa for 10 seconds). Four groups were etched with either 5% hydrofluoric acid (20 seconds or 120 seconds) or 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (20 seconds or 120 seconds). The control was polished and fired only (no treatment). Specimens were placed onto an Instron (1 mm/min crosshead speed) and loaded to failure in a 3-point flexural test. One-way ANOVA and the Dunnett t test determined intergroup differences (α=.05). RESULTS: Compared with the control, the 100, 200, and 300 kPa alumina abraded groups produced significantly lower flexural strengths (P<.001); however, the flexural strength of the 55 kPa abraded group was not statistically different from the control (P=.080). The flexural strength of the 5% and the 9.5% hydrofluoric acid-etched groups also were not significantly different from the control (P>.050); however, the 9.5% hydrofluoric acid at 20 seconds group was nearly statistically significant (P=.051). CONCLUSION: Alumina particle abrasion at pressures of 100 kPa and higher significantly reduced flexural strength by creating stress risers in e.max CAD and should not be used. Hydrofluoric acid etching should be used to increase micromechanical retention and clean the intaglio surface of the restoration before bonding.