Journal of Dental School 2013; 31(3):162-169 Original Article

Comparison of Setting Time, Setting Expansion and Compressive Strength of

Gypsum Casts Produced by Mixing of Gypsum Powder with Distilled Water
or 0.05% Sodium Hypochlorite
1
Hooman Zarakani 2Nafiseh Karimi 1Seyfollah Sadriya *4Amir Fayaz
1
Member of Staff, Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2
General Practitioner.
*3Assistant Professor, Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran- Iran. E-mail: fayaz_am@sbmu.ac.ir 

Abstract
Objective: Previous studies have demonstrated that dental stone casts can be disinfected by replacing
10v% of required water with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution. This comparative study evaluated
physical properties of dental stone models produced by replacing distilled water with sodium
hypochlorite.
Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, a total of 45 dental stone models were produced in the
following 3 groups. Group A included stone models fabricated by mixing 300g gypsum powder and
94 mm3 distilled water. Group B comprised of stone models produced by mixing 300 g gypsum
powder and 94 mm3 diluted 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution. The third group (C) included
specimens produced by mixing 300 g gypsum powder and 90 mm3 distilled water. Setting time,
setting expansion and compressive strength of specimens were measured and compared. All tests
were carried out according to ADA Specification No.25. Obtained results were entered SPSS
software. ANOVA was applied for the comparison of 3 groups and Tukey’s test was used for pair
wise comparison.
Results: Replacing distilled water with sodium hypochlorite caused a statistically significant
reduction in setting time (mean reduction of 515 s) and increased the compressive strength of
samples (mean increase of 4.06 MPa). Setting time in group 2 specimens was shorter than that in
group 3 samples but no statistically significant difference was noted in setting expansion of samples
in the 3 groups.
Conclusion: Replacement of distilled water with sodium hypochlorite had no adverse effect on
setting time, setting expansion or compressive strength of dental stone casts and thus can be used as
a suitable method for disinfection of casts in dental laboratories.
Key words: Compressive strength, Dental stone, Disinfection, Setting expansion, Setting time,
Sodium hypochlorite.
Please cite this article as follows:
Zarakani H, Karimi N, Sadriya S, Fayaz A. Comparison of Setting Time, Setting Expansion and
Compressive Strength of Gypsum Casts Produced by Mixing of Gypsum Powder with Distilled Water or
0.05% Sodium Hypochlorite. J Dent Sch 2013; 31(3):162-169.
Received: 15.08.2012 Final Revision: 05.05.2013 Accepted: 12.05.2013

Introduction: Thus, these materials are in direct contact with

the oral mucosa, saliva and blood and can act as
Among different materials, gypsum is the most a carrier for potential transmission of
commonly used substance to make a duplicateof microorganisms to dental personnel.
theteeth. Dental stone casts are the connection Contaminated impression materials and
between the clinical and the laboratory phases of prostheses are the most important route of
treatment and reconstruct the desired structures infection transmission from patients to the lab
(1). In prosthodontic treatments, impressions are environment (2). Impressions are usually
made of teeth using dental impression materials. contaminated with blood and saliva and simple

rinsing is not sufficient for their decontamination
(3). These contaminants can also be transferred
to dental casts and the cycle of infection
transmission and cross contamination continues
as such (4). To confront this phenomenon, more
emphasis has been placed on irrigation and
disinfection of impressions before sending them
to the lab (5-7). Some researchers have
investigated the effect of disinfection on
dimensional stability of impressions (8-10).
Some others have evaluated the efficacy of
disinfection in reducing the level of microbial
contamination (11, 12). Spraying the
impressionswith disinfectants has also been
reported as an effective technique for reducing
contamination without adversely affecting the
dimensional stability of stone model (13, 14).
Immersion of impressions into the disinfection
solution has also been suggested as a suitable
method to decrease microorganisms (15).
Rinsing the impression with water may reduce
the contamination to a great extent but some
levels of contamination may still exist.
Obviously, while doing dental procedures,
dentists are at risk of contracting a wide range of
diseases from a common cold to TB, hepatitis
and AIDS (11, 12). On the other hand, it has
been demonstrated that immersion of dental
casts into the sodium hypochlorite solution has
no significant adverse effect on stone cast
quality (16-19).
Ivanovski et al. (1995) evaluated the effect of
incorporating disinfecting solutions into gypsum
on level of contamination and physical
properties of the casts and supported the concept
of incorporation of disinfecting agents into stone
models as a standard operating procedure (20).
Furthermore, 0.525% sodium hypochlorite and
0.1% povidone iodine have been proposed as
disinfectants with no adverse effect on
dimensional stability of dental stone casts (21).
In a study conducted in 2003, gypsum was
mixed with water containing 0.5% calcium
hypochlorite resulting in a reduction in number
Zaraakani, et al. 163
ofmicroorganisms and improvement of
mechanical properties of the casts (22).
Adequate compressive strength is among the
most important characteristics of dental stone
casts enabling them to adequately resist against
applied forces during prosthetic laboratory
procedures. Setting time and setting expansion
are also important. It should be noted that when
gypsum is mixed with water, only 18.61g of
water chemically reacts with 100g of gypsum
and the remaining water is left unreacted. In fact,
the excess water is for better wetting of gypsum
powder and formation of a thinner mixture for
easier impression pouring. However,it weakens
the final quality of the set stone (23). This study
sought to assess the compressive strength of
dental stone casts produced by mixing gypsum
powder and 0.5% sodium hypochlorite and
compare it with compressive strength of casts
made of mixing gypsum powder and distilled
water. Setting time and setting expansion were
evaluated as well. The third group was also
included to assess the effect of reducing the
amount of water on the mentioned properties
and to make a comparison with specimens made
by incorporation of less water and hypochlorite.
Thus, this study aimed to compare the effect of
addition of hypochlorite on physical properties
of the conventional casts (with distilled water)
and those produced with less volume of water.
Methods:
In this in-vitro experimental study, a total of 45
dental stone (Type III dental stone, Pars Dandan,
Tehran) casts were produced in 3 groups of 15.
By considering the significance level of
alpha<0.05, study power of over 80%, equal
number of specimens in the 3 groups, standard
deviation of 30s for the setting time in the pilot
study, specification of 60s setting time, 15 to
20% loss to follow up and 5-7 samples in each
group, sample size was calculated as 21.
However, 45 specimens were evaluated in our
Journal of Dental School 2013 164
study. In group A, 300 g gypsum powder was
mixed with 94 mm3distilled water (Zolal,
Tehran). In group B, 300 g gypsum powder was
mixed with 94 mm3 of 0.5% sodium
hypochlorite solution (Shimin Inc., Tehran, Iran)
(diluted with distilled water to 0.5%). In group
C, 300 g gypsum powder was mixed with 90
mm3distilled water. Room temperature was kept
at 25°C at all times and the environment
humidity was 40% measured by the moisture
meter (Moisture Meter, Delmhorst Instrument
Co., Victoria, Australia). Setting time, setting
expansion and compressive strength tests were
separately carried out for all specimens. The
ratio of water to gypsum powder was suggested
to be 28-30cc water per 100g gypsum powder
(24). This amount was tripled in our study
considering the capacity of testing devices for
physical characteristics. Dental stone mixing and
tests were all done according to ADA
specification No. 25 (25).
Gypsum mixture preparation:
Before mixing the gypsum powder with the
respective liquid, the box containing gypsum
powder was shaken well to homogenize the
constituents. The powder was then mixed with
the respective liquid at 25°C and a paste with
desirable consistency was prepared. For this
purpose, first specific amount of liquid was
poured into the rubber bowl (with approximate
diameter of 130mm at the opening, clean and
scratch-free). The desired amount of powder was
then gradually added during 10s; 20s time was
allowed for wetting of powder particles. The
mixture was then mixed with a spatula(21 mm
width and 130 mm length) using circular motion
with approximate speed of 120 rpm for one
minute to obtain a paste with favorable
consistency.
Setting time test:
Metal mould of Vicat apparatus (Vicat
apparatus, Humblot manufacturing company,
Chicago, IL, USA) with 50mm height and 35
mm internal diameter was completely filled with
the mixture and the surface was smoothed with a
spatula. One to 2 min prior to the expected time
of setting, the valve screw was loosened to allow
the needle tip of the apparatus (with 3mm
diameter and 300g weight)penetrate into the
stone paste. This was repeated every 30s and
each time the mould was slightly repositioned to
allow the needle penetrate into a new point. The
needle was cleaned each time, its tip was placed
in contact with the paste, the valve screw was
tightened and the degree indicated by the stylus
was read. The valve screw was then loosened
rapidly in order for the needle to penetrate into
the gypsum. The degree was then read again.
This was repeated until the needle could not
penetrate all the way to the bottom of the
specimen. This position was considered as the
termination of setting (23). Setting time of
gypsum was calculated from the initiation of
mixing to this point.
Setting expansion test:
First, a V-shaped stainless steel mould
measuring 140x30x30 mm and thickness of
4mm was designed and fabricated. A brass cubic
mold with 30mm dimensions and 200g weight
was also used. This piece was mobile and could
move in the V-shaped mould due to stone
expansion.
Micrometer with 0.01 mm readability (Dial
caliper, Mitutoyo, USA) was placed over the
expansion-meter in a way that the V-shaped
mould had 100 mm distance from the mobile
piece (measured by caliper). The bottom of the
V-shaped mould was covered with a rubber dam
(SDI, Victoria, Australia). Then 150g of gypsum
powder was mixed with the respective liquid as
described earlier and poured into the V-shaped
mould over the rubber dam using a spatula. The
surface of paste was smoothed and covered with
the rest of the rubber dam. The entire complex
was placed into a plastic bag to prevent
vaporization of liquid. One minute prior to

gypsum setting, the amount of expansion was
read. Length of specimens was once again
measured at 120 min. the test was repeated twice
and the mean of obtained values was reported in
hundredth of mm.
Compressive strength testing:
A two-piece mould was fabricated of a brass
wire that included 5 adjacent cylinders with
20±0.2 mm diameter and 40±0.4 mm height
according to the ADA standard dimensions. A
total of 150g of gypsum was mixed with the
desired amount of liquid as described earlier.
The moulds were placed over a glass slab, filled
with the gypsum paste and gently vibrated for
30s on a vibrator (Pars Dental, Tehran, Iran) to
eliminate any possible void. Before the
elimination of gypsum surface shine, another
glass slab was placed on top of the moulds.
Forty-five minutes after mixing, specimens were
removed from the mould and placed into the
plastic containers designed for alginate storage
for 15min to prevent vaporization of moisture (at
Zaraakani, et al. 165
23°C temperature and 95% humidity). After an
hour, the samples were transferred to
compressive strength testing machine
(Walter+Baiag Testing Machine, Switzerland) to
determine their wet strength. The machine had
0.01 kN readability with a crosshead speed of
8.5 kN/min. The obtained values at failure of
each specimen were recorded.
Data were entered SPSS version 13 software.
Considering the normal distribution of data
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov and histogram with
normal distribution curve), ANOVA was used to
compare mean differences among the 3 groups
(p<0.05). For pairwise comparison of groups,
Tukey’s test was applied. p<0.05 was considered
statistically significant.
Results:
Setting time (s), setting expansion (%) and
compressive strength (MPa) of samples are
demonstrated in Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1- Setting time of specimens in the 3 groups (5 repetitions)

Group Setting time (s) Mean SD
Group A 955 932 898 910 925 924 21.78
Group B 390 419 410 405 423 409.4 12.97
Group C 733 709 745 700 799 737.2 38

Table 2- Setting expansion of samples in the 3 groups (5 repetitions)

Group Setting expansion (%) Mean SD
Group A 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.316 0.005
Group B 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.324 0.005
Group C 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.292 0.008

Table 3- Compressive strength of specimens in the 3 groups (5 repetitions)

Group Compressive strength (MPa) Mean SD
Group A 12.72 16.36 14.54 14.54 15.15 14.662 1.31
Group B 18.78 20.97 16.97 18.78 18.48 18.792 1.43
Group C 18.18 16.36 15.75 13.94 18.45 16.536 1.85

The mean values of the abovementioned respectively.

variables are shown in Diagrams 1, 2 and 3,
Journal of Dental School 2013 166
 

1000

800

600
924
Mean setting 400
737.2
time (s)
200 409.4

Group A Group B Group C

Diagram 1- The mean setting time of specimens in the 3 groups

0.33
0.32
0.31
0.3
0.324
Mean setting 0.29 0.316
expansion (%) 0.28
0.292
0.27

Group A Group B Group C

Diagram 2- The mean setting expansion of samplesin the 3 groups

٢٠

١۵

Mean ١٠ 18.727
16.536
compressive 14.662
strength (MPa) ۵

٠
Group A Group B Group C
Diagram 3- The mean compressive strength of specimens in the 3 groups

Setting time test: significantly longer than in groups B and C

The mean setting time was 924s in group A,
409.4s in group B and 737.2s in group C.
ANOVA found significant differences in this
respect among the 3 groups (p<0.05). Tukey’s
test was used for pairwise comparison of groups
and showed that setting time in group A was
(p<0.05). Also, setting time of group C was
longer than that of group B.
Setting expansion test:
The mean setting expansion was 0.316% in
group A, 0.324% in group B and 0.292% in
group C. According to ANOVA, the difference

in this respect among the 3 groups was
statistically significant (p<0.05). Pairwise
comparison of groups with Tukey’s test revealed
no significant difference in this regard between
groups A and B (p>0.05). But the setting
expansions in groups A and B were greater than
that of group C (p<0.05).
Compressive strength test:
The mean compressive strength was 14.662 MPa
in group A, 18.727 MPa in group B and 16.536
MPa in group C. The difference in this respect
among the 3 groups was statistically significant
(ANOVA) (p<0.05). Pair wise comparison of
groups with Tukey’s test showed that the mean
compressive strength in group B was greater
than in groups A and C (p<0.05).
Discussion:
Based on the obtained results, addition of
sodium hypochlorite to type 3 dental stone had
no adverse effect on the understudy physical
properties of dental stone casts. Results showed
that addition of sodium hypochlorite to distilled
water increased the compressive strength of the
produced stone models; which is a positive
effect. This finding may be explained by the fact
that by addition of sodium hypochlorite less
amount of water is available to react with
calcium sulfate hemihydrate in gypsum powder
in order to convert it to calcium sulfate
dihydrate. Thus, as reported in the literature,
reducing the water/powder ratio in gypsum paste
increases the compressive strength of the
produced stone model (23, 24). Reduction in the
amount of water also facilitates the conversion
of calcium sulfate hemihydrate to calcium
sulfate dihydrate. Thus, the setting time is
decreased. Another explanation for the higher
compressive strength and shorter setting time
would be that sodium hypochlorite serves as the
catalyst of the reaction and may exert its effect
by increasing the solubility of calcium sulfate
hemihydrate.
Zaraakani, et al. 167
Small number of studies have evaluated the
effect of addition of disinfectants to the water
mixed with gypsum powder. Donovan and Chee
in 1989 (26) studied type 4 modified dental
stone called Steri-Die that contained Chloramine
T solution incorporated into the gypsum powder.
They reported that the setting time of stone
models made of this composition significantly
decreased compared to conventional dental
stones. This finding is in accord with our
obtained results. Their study also showed that
setting expansion of models produced by mixing
sterile die and water was twice the rate in
models produced by mixing type 4 dental stone
and water. This finding is in contrast to our
obtained results. In 1998, Breault et al. (27) in a
similar study stated that addition of 0.5%
sodium hypochlorite to gypsum powder
decreased the setting time and similar to our
study, they found no significant difference in
setting expansion between the 2 groups. Stern et
al. in 1991 (17) evaluated the effect of
disinfectants such as sodium hypochlorite,
iodophor, phenol and glutaraldehyde on physical
properties of stone casts and reported an increase
in compressive strength of these casts compared
to conventional casts. Surface properties of stone
casts produced by mixing type 3 and 4 dental
stone, gum Arabic and calcium hydroxide were
evaluated by Abdelaziz et al. (28) in 2002 and it
was revealed that the compressive strength of
these casts was higher than that of conventional
casts made of type 3 and 4 dental stone; which is
in agreement with our findings. Twomey et al.
(23) in 2003 suggested 0.5% calcium
hypochlorite as a suitable disinfectant for
incorporation into gypsum powder and reported
that higher percentages of this material will
decrease the strength of dental stone models.
The difference between the mentioned study and
ours may be attributed to the type and different
percentages of the materials used. Considering
the obtained results, use of sodium hypochlorite
significantly reduced the setting time to anextent
Journal of Dental School 2013 168
greater than did the lower volume of water;
which is especially important in dental
laboratories where time is an issue. By
decreasing the amount of water, the setting
expansion is decreased and in our study the
setting expansion was higher in groups A and B.
it should be noted that the preparation steps, type
of dental stone and particularly method of
mixing (mechanical versus manual) can affect
and control the setting expansion. Although the
difference between groups A and B was not
significant, expansion in group B was greater
than in group A. considering the shrinkage of
cast alloys, this expansion is overall favorable
for compensation of metal shrinkage. As
mentioned earlier, the mean compressive
strength was higher in cases where sodium
hypochlorite was used and this is a positive
point for laboratory procedures particularly in
Flasking and Processing of acrylic resin denture
base materials.
Conclusion:
Addition of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite to
distilled water for disinfection of dental stone
casts decreased the setting time, increased the
compressive strength and had no significant
effect on setting expansion of stone models.
Higher amount of distilled water increased the
setting time and setting expansion but had no
impact on compressive strength of samples.
Acknowledgement
This article was part of doctoral thesis of Mrs.
NafisehKarimi (#2586). The thesis supervisor
was Dr. HoomanZarkani and the consulting
professor was Dr. SeyfollahSadria from Shahid
Beheshti University, School of Dentistry.
Conflict of Interest: “None Declared”

References:

1. Rudd KD, Morrow RM, Brown CE Jr, Powell JM, Rahe AJ. Comparison of effects of tap water
and slurry water on gypsum casts. J Prosthet Dent 1970; 24: 563-570.
2. Jennings KJ, Samaranayale LP. The persistence of microorganism on impression materials
following disinfection. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:382-387.
3. Rowe AH, Forrest JO. Dental impressions, the probability of contamination and a method of
disinfection. Br Dent J 1978; 145: 184-186.
4. Guideline for infection control in the dental office and commercial dental laboratory. Council on
Dental Therapeutics. Council on Prosthetic Services and Dental Laboratory Relation. J Am Dent
Assoc 1985; 6: 969-972.
5. Wood PR. Practical Cross infection control in dentistry. 1st Ed. St Louis: The CV Mosby Co.
1992; Chaps 1,8: 8-13, 99-103.
6. Scully C, Porter S. The level of risk of transition of human immunodeficiency virus between
patients and dental staff. Br Dent J 1991; 170: 97-100.
7. Haralur SB, Al-Dowah OS, Gona NS, Al-Hylham A. Effect of alginate chemical disinfection on
bacterial count over gypsum cast. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4: 84-88.
8. Adabo GL, Zanarotti E, Fonseca RG, Cruz CA. Effects of disinfectant agent on dimentional
stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 621-624.
9. Herrera SP, Marchant VA. Dimentional stability of dental impressions after immersion
disinfection. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 113: 419-422.
10. Wassel RW. Disinfection of Impression materials and casts. Br Dent J 2007; 202: 36-37.
 Zaraakani, et al. 169
 
11. Davis DR, Knapp JF. The significance of AIDS to dentists and dental practice. J Prosthet Dent
1984; 52:736-738.
12. Fox PC, Wolff A, Yeh CK, Atkinson JC, Baum BJ. Saliva inhibits HIV-1 infectivity. J Am Dent
Assoc 1988; 116: 635-637.
13. Drennon DG, Johnson GH, Pawell GL. The accuracy and efficacy of disinfection by spray
atomization on elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 468-475.
14. Suprono MS, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacro CJ, Winer MS. Effect of disinfection on irreversible
hydrocolloid and alternative impression materials and resultant gypsum casts. J Prosthet Dent
2012; 108: 250-258.
15. Johnson GH, Chellis FD, Gordon GE, Lepe X. Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of
irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression disinfected by immersion . J Prosthet Dent
1998; 79:446-453.
16. Sarma AC, Neiman R. A study in the effects of disinfectant chemicals on the physical properties
of die stone. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 53-59.
17. Stern MA, Johnson GH, Toolson LB. An evaluation of dental stones after repeated exposure to
spray disinfectants. Part IV. Abrasion and compressive strength. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65:713-
718.
18. Bass RA, Plummer KD, Anderson EF. The effect of a surface disinfectant on a dental cast. J
Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 723-725.
19. Abdullah MA. Surface detail, compressive strength, and dimensional accuracy of gypsum casts
after repeated immersion in hypochlorite solution: J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95:462-468.
20. Ivanovski S, Savage NW, Brockhurtst PJ, Bird PS. Disinfection of dental stone casts:
antimicrobial effects and physical property alterations. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 19-23.
21. Abdelaziz KM, Attia A, Combe EC. Evaluation of disinfected casts poured in gypsum with gum
arabic and calcium hydroxide additives: J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 27-34.
22. Twomey JO, Abdelaziz KM, Combe EC, Anderson DL. Calcium hypochlorite as a disinfecting
additive for dental stone. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:282-288.
23. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials, 13th Ed. Philadelphia: The C.V.
Mosby Co. 2012; Chap 12: 292- 308.
24. Anusavice KJ. Phillip's, Science of dental materials. 11th Ed. St.Louis: Saunders 1995; Chap
10:259-261.
25. American Dental Association Guid to dental materials and devices. 7th Ed. ADA publication,
Chicago, Illinoise 1974- 1975: 86-91, 255-260.
26. Donovan T, Chee WW. Periliminary investigation of a disinfectant gypsum die stone. Int J
Prosthodont 1989; 2: 245-248.
27. Breault LG, Paul JR, Hondrum SO, Cheristensen LC. Die Stone disinfection: Incorporation of
sodium hypochlorit: J Prosthodont 1998; 7: 13-16.
28. Abdelaziz KM, Combe EC, Hodges JC. The effect of disinfectants on the properties of dental
gypsum. Part 2: Surface properties. J Prosthodont 2002; 11: 234-240.