You are on page 1of 4

Dnnng i .

Diton, DMD, MA*
Assistant Professor

The Effect of Custom
Tray Material Type and
Surface Treatment on
the Tensile Bond Strength
of an Impression
Material/Adhesive System

Larry C. Breeding, DMD, MSEd'
Associate Professor
Mary I, Bosser, DDS'"
Amir I, Nafso. DDS****
Ceneral Practice Resident

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the tensile
bond strength of one type of impression material adhesive to
three different custom tray materials: one autopolymerizing
(Fastray) and two light-polymerizing (Triad and Extoral). The
effect of different surface treatments was evaluated for each
of the materials. No significant difference in impression
material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths was exhibited
for any of the materials as the result of variations in the
surface treatment. It was observed that the Triad tray material
groups, with different surface treatments, exhibited
significantly higher impression material adhesive mean
tensile bond strengths than the autopolymerizing tray resin
and the Extoral light-polymerizing material. Intj Prosthodont

revious investigators have evaluated the bond
P strengths
of several impression materials to

cording to manufacturers, provide immediate dimensional stability upon completion of polymerization. The purpose of this investigation was to
evaluate the tensile bond strength of one impression material/adhesive system to two types of lightpolymerizing custom tray materials and compare
them to an autopolymerizing control group. Another variable considered in this investigation was
tray material surface treatment.

custom and stock trays.' Because of health concerns regarding monomer inhalation, other types
of custom tray materials are receiving more attention. In an effort to evaluate characteristics of an
alternative tray material, Hogans and Agar- completed an investigation concerning elastomer tray
adhesive bond strengths to thermoplastic and
acrylic resin materials. However, investigations involving light-polymerizing materials in connection
with impression material adhesion have not been
published. Tbe t h e r m o p l a s t i c and lightpolymerizing materials avoid the risk of monomer
inhalation; offer ease of tray fabrication; and, ac-

Materials and Methods

Perforated acrylic resin specimen holders
(Orthodontic Resin, L.D. Caulk Co Div, Dentsply,
Milford, DE] were fabricated for the tray materials
(Figi) using a mold. Each tray material holder had a
flaf square surface that measured 3.81 cm on each
side. A T-nut was incorporated in the holder so that
'Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry,
an eye-bolt could be threaded into it for attachment
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. during tensile testing. The holders designated to
"Department of Oral Health Practice, College of Dentistry,
retain the impression material were similar in deUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
sign, except small triangles of resin, 2 mm in thick'"Lîkewood. Colorado.
ness, were for med on all four corners of the surtace
""Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
to insure an even thickness of impression material
Reprint requests: Dr Donna L. Dixon, Department of Restorative for testing (Eig 2]. Eighteen specimens were fabriDentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama al Birming- cated using an autopolymerizing resin (Eastray,
ham, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.

6. Number3,1593


Journai of Pros 1 hod on lies

MA) (Fig3). These were attached to the holders by first filling the perforations and then placing the holder onto the sheet of material and removing the excess. L. The perforations in the holder were filled with the resin. Air Barrier Coating (Dentsply) was applied to all of the Triad specimens and nine of the Fxtoral specimens. and the material was trimmed to the size of the holder using a sharp scalpel. and Extoral. Dentsply. One coat of the adhesive (Caulk Tray Adhesive. OR) were used to fabricate 36 additional specimens (18 of each type). a tensile force was applied. Fig 2 Henry Bosworfh Co.Custom Tray Material Type and Surface Treatment Fig 1 Tray materiai specimen holder with Fastray material attached. L. Caulk Corp Div) holder. Portland. Tiie Internationa i of Prosthodontii Impression material specimen holder Results Adhesive failure was observed to occur both at the impression material adhesive/tray maferial interface and at the adhesive/impression material interface in all of the specimens studied (Fig 4). The calculated adhesive tensile bond strengths for the tray material groups tested are displayed in Table 2. After the adhesive had dried for 10 minutes at room temperature. Using a500-kg load cell with a crosshead speed of 0. Caulk Corp Div) was applied to each tray speci- men and to each vinyl(poly siloxane) impression material (Reprosil Heavy Body Impression Material. Skokie. a Scheffe F test was completed 304 . Following compilation of dafa. Pro-Den Systems. the holder was pressed onto the surface of the rolled resin. Impression material that had been expressed beyond the sides of the approximated specimen holders was removed using a sharp scalpel blade.'The data in Table 2 were then compared using a one-way analysis of variance (P < . and fhe force necessary to separate the impression materiai side from the tray materiai side of each specimen was recorded.05). To determine between which groups the differences existed. The 36 Triad and Fxtoral specimens were placed in a Triad light-polymerizing unit (Model 2000. the surfaces of nine specimens were cleaned with soap and water for 15 seconds. Canton. and nine were cleaned for 15 seconds using isopropyl alcohol. the 18 Extoral specimens were cleaned with 90% isopropyl alcohol for 15 seconds followed by a 15-second cleaning with soap and water. The other nine Fastray specimens were cleaned with 90% isopropyl alcohol for 15 seconds prior to cleaning with soap and water and drying as described above. appropriate statistical analyses were conducted. followed by another 15-second soap and water cleaning. Fach specimen was placed in a testing machine (Instron Universal. IL). Romulus. PA. Ml) coated with petroleum jelly. A summary of specimen group treatments is presented in Table 1.values are listed in this table to allow comparison of the results from fhis investigafion to the results from previously published studies involving autopolymerizing tray resins. The tray material and mixed impression material were placed in even contact with each other and allowed to set under a constant 6-kg load for 10 minufes. Next. Nine of fhe polymerized Triad specimens were cleaned with only soap and water for 15 seconds. A significant diffeTence was shown to exist among the groups (Table 3).D.5 cm/ min. This material was mixed according to manufacfurer's insfructions and rolled to a uniform thickness of 3 mm on a Rollet Unit (Kerr Mtg. Dentsply) for 5 minutes. Both kg/cm.and Ib/in. After the resin had polymerized. and allowed to set at room temperature for 24 hours before testing.D. dried with a clean paper fowel. All specimens were dried with a paper towel and allowed to set at room temperature for24 hours before testing. two light-polymerizing materials (Triad. Instron Corp. York. equal lengths of the impression material base and catalyst were hand mixed with a spatula for 1 minute and applied to the specimen holder. After polymerization.

70 (9.75) 0. Number 3.'water 15 s soap/water 15 s alcohol 15 s soap/water 24 10 24 10 24 24 10 10 Pa stray Pa Stray Air Barrier Coating applied Wifh petroleum jelly With petroleum jelly Table 2 Calculated Data for Tray Material Groups Measured in kg/cm= Mean SD SEM CV 5.66) 0 39(5.86) 17.18(16.26) 0.89) 27.30 (4.76 (10.15 83.'water 15 s alcchol 15 s soap.94 0.35(61.70 24.86 (5.99) 0 19(2.54(17 55] 22 20 (22.30) 0.10(1.05 : 6.11 (72.1993 305 The International lournal of Prosthodontics .66) 0.58) 2.77) 5.05 (43.71) 4.99) 0.12(27.CüStorr Tray Malerial Type and Surface Treatment Fig 3 Specimen placed in the Instron machine for fensiie testing.25 (3. Table 1 Material Triad Triad Extorai El to ral Fig 4 Mode ct failure observed tcr all specimens Summary o( Experirrental Conditions Polymerization conditions Cleaning methods Storage time betöre adhesive addition (h] Adhesive drying time (mm) Air Barrier Coating applied Air Barrier Coating applied No Air Barner Coating t5 s alcohol 15 s soap'water t 5 s soap'water 24 10 24 10 15 s alcohol 15 s soap.42) 0.20) 11 54(11.50 •A significant difference exists at P < .89) 3.43) 2.9B) 1.62) 0.46) 49.58 (8.23 (3.36 (33.85 11.16(44.36) 0.35 (4.16(30.08) Group Triad (aicotiol] Triad (no alcohoi] Extoral (no air barner) Exforal (air barrier) Fastray (aicohoi] Fa stray (no alcohoi] Table 3 Analysis of Variance Comparison of the Tensile Bond Strengths lor the Tray Material Groups Model Error Correlation total Sum of squares Mean square 59.33) 013(1.91 (49.99) 3.

When using a custom tray and a stiff impression material such as vinyKpoly siioxane).and 4. IHesby RA. 306 . (2) long clinical crowns with open gingival interproximal spaces.05. exhibited higher impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths than the autopolymerizing groups. Table 4 Scheffe F Test for Tray Material Groups Triad (alcohol) Triad (no aloohoi) Extorai (no air barrier) rxtorai (air barrier) =astray (alcohol) =astray (no alcohol) 9 9 9 9 9 9 5. Chai JY. The Extoral specimens on which the Air Barrier Coating was used exhibited a nonsignificant decrease in bond strength compared to the specimens cleaned with isopropyl alcohol. Agar |R. 2.35 3.«3. The bond strength of elastomer tray adhesives to Ihermoplastic and acrylic resin Iray materials. inaccurate prostheses. (1) large undercuts around pontics in existing prostheses.11 4. The Triad tray material groups exhibited significantly greater impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths than the Extoral and Fastray groups. sion copings that may be divergent. Results from this test indicated that both Triad groups (with and without alcohol) exhibited significantly higher impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths than the other tray material groups (5. References 1. theadditionai procedureof applying the Air Barrier Coating to the Extoral material is unnecessary. The use of Air Barrier Coating with the Extorai resin resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in the impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strength. exhibited tensile bond strengths that were significantly lower than those of the Triad groups on which the coating was used during light polymerization. Isolated bond failure of the impression material to the tray is difficult to detect. Hogans WR.Custom Tray Material Type and Surface Treatment (Table 4).35 kg/cm-. with and without the Air Barrier Coating. The Extoral material. Moser |B. The impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths of the Extoral specimen groups were shown to be similar to the mean tensile bond strengths of the Fastray groups. Therefore. and these values were found to be similar. | Prosthet DenM991. therefore. the force necessary to remove the impression from the oral cavity can be greatly increased by the presence of.36 2. 67:541-. | Proslhet Dent 1992 . 2. Jameson LM. respectively].6S:201-20'i. Such bond failure may result in inaccurate casts and. although the removal of the airinhibited unpolymerized surface layer using isopropyl alcohol is recommended. under the conditions of this investigation. Discussion The light-polymerizing tray material. or (3) dental implant impres- Tile Internationai lournai of Prosthodontics Mean (kg/om^¡ Group Conclusion The results from this investigation suggest the following conclusions: 1. Adhesive properties of several impression material systems: Part I.16 •Vertical lines ¡opn groups thai are not significantly difterenl at P < .05 2. The use of an alcohol surface-cleaning treatment resulted in a nonsignificant increase in the impression material adhesive mean tensile bond strength for both the Triad and Fastray resins. The use of an alcohol surface cleaning treatment did not significantly improve the bond strength with the Triad material. The addition of an alcohol cleaning procedure during the preparation of the Fastray specimens resulted in a nonsignificant increase in the adhesive tensile bond strength.t6 3.11 kg/cm. 3. The use of an impression material adhesive/ tray material system that exhibits a high tensile bond strength is indicated under the intraoral conditions mentioned above to minimize the occurrence of such inaccuracies. The Extoral material manufacturer does not recommend the use of Air Barrier Coating during light polymerization.