托盘粘接剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同粗糙度托盘材料间结合强度的影响

目的：研究托盘粘接剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同粗糙度的托盘材料间结合强度的影响。方法：2种托盘材料：自凝树脂和不锈钢;分3种粗糙度：45目,220目,400目加自然表面分成4大组;每种材料每种粗糙度各分2组,一组涂布粘接剂,另一组不涂布,总计16组,每组6个试件,共96个试件。采用GC公司的加成型硅橡胶印模材料和专用粘接剂。拉力测试,所得数据用SAS软件进行统计分析。结果：在所有托盘材料中,都显示应用粘接剂的那组具有更高的结合强度（P〈0.05）。使用粘接剂前,托盘材料对结合强度的影响具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。使用粘接剂前后,托盘材料的表面粗糙度对结合强度的影响都具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：应用托盘粘接剂能改善加成型硅橡胶印模材料和托盘的结合强度。应用粘接剂前,不同托盘材料对结合强度有影响,自凝树脂大于不锈钢材料。在应用粘接剂情况下,结合强度随托盘表面粗糙度的增加而增加。没有应用粘接剂时,则需要把托盘粗糙到一定程度才可以增加结合强度。     

托盘粘结剂对硅橡胶印模材料与托盘材料间粘结强度的影响

目的：研究托盘粘结剂对硅橡胶印模材料与不同托盘材料间粘结强度的影响。方法：分别选用GC和3M二种硅橡胶,托盘材料为不锈钢和自凝塑料,托盘粘结剂为GC和3M公司提供的专用粘结剂,进行交互使用,不涂粘结剂的作为对照组,共12组。各组均为6个样本。印模材料的调和按厂商说明进行,注入专门的测试装置中。等印模材料完全凝固后,把整个装置连接到万能测力仪上进行拉力测试,以5mm／min的速度拉伸直到粘附脱落。所得数据用SAS软件进行统计分析。结果：托盘粘结剂的使用能显著提高硅橡胶印模与托盘的粘结强度（P〈0．01）。在不使用托盘粘结剂时,不同托盘之间的粘接强度差异无统计学意义（P=0．1559）;且不同托盘材料与不同硅橡胶印模材料间无交互影响作用（P=0．8226）。无论使用哪种硅橡胶印模材料或哪种托盘材料,应用GC托盘粘结剂组的粘结强度均高于3M托盘粘结剂组（P〈0．01）。结论：临床取模过程中在托盘表面应用粘接剂能有效的改善硅橡胶印模材料和托盘的粘接强度,从而提高印模的精确性。不同厂家提供的专用粘结剂可交互使用。     

温度对藻酸盐印模材料和聚醚印模材料流动性的影响

在23℃和32℃下,对藻酸盐印模材料和聚醚印模材料调和完成后的流动性进行连续的无间断测定。23℃下,藻酸盐印模材料在调和开始190 s后固化完成,聚醚印模材料在调和后310 s固化完成。32℃下,藻酸盐印模材料在调和开始130 s后固化完成,聚醚印模材料在调和后180 s后固化完成。温度对2种印模材料调和后的操作时间和硬化时间均有影响,对聚醚印模材料的影响更大,临床应用要注意温度的变化。     

三种藻酸盐印模材料与印模膏粘结强度的比较研究

目的 研究印模膏与3种藻酸盐印模材料之间的粘结强度.方法 用同一种尺寸(40 mm×30 mm×6 mm)的印模膏与3种不同藻酸盐印模材料结合后在万能试验机上测定印模膏与藻酸盐印模材料的粘结强度.结果 贺利氏藻酸盐印模材料新配方型(Heraplast NF)及红叶藻酸盐印模材料与贺利氏藻酸盐印模材料通用型(Heraplast BC)比较有显著差别(P＜0.05).贺利氏藻酸盐印模材料新配方型与红叶藻酸盐印模材料相比较无差别(P＞0.05).结论 贺利氏藻酸盐印模材料新配方型及红叶藻酸盐印模材料与印模膏粘结强度好.     

藻酸盐印模材料流动性能的比较研究

目的 研究藻酸盐印模材料流动性能随时间变化的特点.方法 利用直径20 mm、高20 mm的圆柱形模具,将藻酸盐印模材料调拌放入其中,在不同时间施加0.7 kg的负荷,测量其直径表示其流动性大小.结果 两种藻酸盐印模材料均在30 s时流动性最好,其后流动性逐渐下降,但红叶藻酸盐印模材料在150 s后流动停止,贺利氏藻酸盐印模材料则在180 s后无流动性;两种藻酸盐印模材料的流动性差别有显著性统计学意义(P＜0.01);同一种印模材料在各时间段的流动性差别有显著性统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 藻酸盐印模材料的流动性随着时间的延长而逐渐减弱,30 s时为取模的最佳时间.     

藻酸盐印模材料特性及在口腔修复临床中的应用

目的:将藻酸盐印模材料更好地应用于口腔修复临床.方法:了解和掌握藻酸盐印模材料的保存,贮藏与性能,以及它在应用于各类临床修复中的注意事项.结果:正确应用藻酸盐印模材料,可获得准确,清晰的印模,结论:藻酸盐印模材料应妥善保存和规范使用才能获取精确印模.     

调拌方法对藻酸盐印模材料操作时间固化时间的影响

藻酸盐普通型印模材料用手工、调拌器和搅拌机(8 s)调和的操作时间分别为71、66、53 s;快凝型印模材料用手工、调拌器调和的操作时间分别为56 s和51s.普通型印模材料用手工、调拌器和搅拌机(8 s)调和的固化时间分别为163、160和124 s;快凝型印模材料用手工、调拌器调和的固化时间分别为131 s和121 s.普通型印模材料较适用于手工30 s、调拌器20s和搅拌机8 s调拌;快凝型印模材料较适用于手工30 s和调拌器20 s调拌.     

喷砂对不同粘接剂与氧化锆粘接强度的影响

目的研究喷砂对不同粘接剂与氧化锆粘接强度的影响,筛选出比较理想的粘接剂。方法将由ZrO2制成的大瓷片（140个）和小瓷片（140个）随机配对分成14组。对ZrO2的表面分别不作处理和喷砂处理,选用临床常用的7种粘接剂,将较小瓷片粘接在较大瓷片上。置于37℃蒸馏水里保存24h后,进行剪切粘接强度测试,并进行统计学分析。结果喷砂组的粘接强度明显高于非喷砂组（P〈0.01）。PanaviaF、Super-BondC＆B与ZrO2的粘接强度明显高于BifixQM与ZrO2的粘接强度（P〈0.01）。结论喷砂能明显提高粘接剂与ZrO2的粘接强度,Panavia F、Super-Bond C＆B是比较理想的粘接剂。     

3 种藻酸盐印模材料性能的临床报道

目前国内单冠的取模多采用藻酸盐材料,藻酸盐材料随着温度的升高,材料的凝固速度加快,因此在夏季取模时, 给医生造成一定的麻烦。为使操作方便,贺利氏公司在通用型藻酸盐印模材料的基础上,推出了变色龙型和新配方型藻酸盐印模材料。本实验从工作时间、凝固时间、强度等临床     

Drying time of tray adhesive for adequate tensile bond strength between polyvinylsiloxane impression and tray resin material

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Use of custom tray and tray adhesive is clinically recommended for elastomeric impression material. However there is not clear mention of drying time of tray adhesive in achieving appropriate bonding strength of tray material and impression material.

PURPOSE

This study is to investigate an appropriate drying time of tray adhesives by evaluating tensile bonding strength between two types of polyvinylsiloxane impression materials and resin tray, according to various drying time intervals of tray adhesives, and with different manufacturing company combination of impression material and tray adhesive.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Adhesives used in this study were Silfix (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and VPS Tray Adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and impression materials were Aquasil Ultra (monophase regular set, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and Imprint II Garant (regular body, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). They were used combinations from the same manufacture and exchanged combinations of the two. The drying time was designed to air dry, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. Total 240 of test specimens were prepared by auto-polymerizing tray material (Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Il, USA) with 10 specimens in each group. The specimens were placed in the Universal Testing machine (Instron, model 3366, Instron Corp, University avenue, Nowood, MA, USA) to perform the tensile test (cross head speed 5 mm/min). The statistically efficient drying time was evaluated through ANOVA and Scheffe test. All the tests were performed at 95% confidence level.

RESULTS

The results revealed that at least 10 minutes is needed for Silfix-Aquasil, and 15 minutes for VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II, to attain an appropriate tensile bonding strength. VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength when compared to Silfix-Aquasil over 15 minutes. Silfix-Aquasil had a superior bonding strength to VPS Tray Adhesive-Aquasil, and VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength to Silfix-Imprint II at all drying periods.

CONCLUSION

Significant increase in tensile bonding strength with Silfix-Aquasil and VPS Tray adhesive-Imprint II combination until 10 and 15 minutes respectively. Tray adhesive-impression material combination from the same company presented higher tensile bonding strength at all drying time intervals than when using tray adhesive-impression material of different manufactures.     

Retention of alginate impression material using a polyester fiber-mat textile

To ensure accuracy, alginate, impression materials must be firmly retained in the impression tray. This short report compares the effectiveness of perforated trays with a newly developed self-adhesive polyester fibre mat material which can be used to line the inner surface of stock and custom made impression trays. In all cases, the fibre mat was much more effective as a retention medium when compared with perforations. Also, small perforations proved more effective than larger ones for alginate retention.     

3种调拌方法对藻酸盐印模材料气泡及凝固状态的影响

目的: 比较全自动印模调拌机、顺时针手动和联合八字手动3种调拌方法对藻酸盐印模材料气泡含量、流动性等物理性能的影响。方法: 分别采用3种不同调拌方法调制藻酸盐印模材料,比较印模的气泡数量、总面积和流动性,调拌前、后温度变化以及工作时间和凝固时间差异。采用SPSS 24.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 全自动调拌组气泡数量为（2.30±2.50）个,总面积为（0.17±0.18） mm²,小于顺时针手动调拌组数量[（59.60±14.19）个]和总面积[（7.41±2.24） mm²],差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）;顺时针手动调拌组流动性（39.52±0.85） mm,小于全自动调拌组[（50.78±0.90） mm]和联合八字手动调拌组[（50.36±1.75） mm],差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）;3种方法调印模的工作时间和凝固时间均符合临床要求。结论: 全自动调拌法印模在气泡含量、流动性等方面较佳。手动调拌中,联合八字调拌法有助于减少印模气泡与形变量,提高流动性。     

Peel bond strength between 3D printing tray materials and elastomeric impression/adhesive systems: A laboratory study

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the bonding between three 3D printed custom tray materials and three elastomeric impression/adhesive systems using the peel test.MethodsTest blocks were 3D printed by three different technologies using Dental LT, FREEPRINT tray, and polylactide (PLA) tray materials. The reference test blocks were conventionally fabricated with Zeta Tray LC, a light-curing resin. The surface topographies of the four tray materials were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses and roughness measurements. The peel bond strength between the four tray materials and three impression/adhesive systems, vinylsiloxanether (VSXE), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), and polyether (PE), was measured (n = 12 per group). The peeling failure modes and rupture sites were identified microscopically.ResultsThe four tray materials featured different surface topographies. The peel bond strength was not significantly different with VSXE and PE, but PLA and the reference showed higher peel bond strength with VPS than the Dental LT and FREEPRINT tray (p < 0.05). The rupture site of adhesive failure in all groups was partly at the adhesive-impression material interface and partly within the adhesive but never at the adhesive-tray material interface.SignificanceThe 3D printed tray materials can achieve satisfactory chemical compatibility with the adhesives of VSXE, VPS, and PE. Surface topographies generated by the 3D printing technologies may affect bonding. Generally, 3D printed tray materials can provide clinically adequate bond strength with the elastomeric impression/adhesive systems. PLA is recommended for bonding with VPS when severe impression removal resistance is detected.     

The effect of custom tray material type and fabrication technique on tensile bond strength of impression material adhesive systems

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the tensile bond strengths of two impression material systems (polysulphide and polyvinyl siloxane) to two custom tray materials [autopolymerizing and visible light-cured (VLC) acrylic resin]. The effect of polymerizing the tray materials directly against wax spacer and tin foil was evaluated for each material. Polymerizing tray materials against tin foil significantly increased the bond strengths of polysulphide and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials to VLC and autopolymerizing acrylic resin tray materials. Polyvinyl siloxane VLC cured against tin foil combination produced the strongest bond. The VLC resin tray material generated greater bond strength than autopolymerizing acrylic resin when polymerized against tin foil.