부산대학교 도서관

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00164.x Byline: Gerard Kugel (1), Thomas Klettke (2), Jeffrey A. Goldberg (3), Jaques Benchimol (3), Ronald D. Perry (4), Shradha Sharma (5) Keywords: hydrophilicity; flow properties; impression materials; contact angle measurement Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the initial water contact angles of seven unset impression materials using commercially available equipment, in an effort to determine whether polyether impression materials (Impregum) have lower contact angles and are, therefore, more hydrophilic than VPS impression materials. Materials and Methods: The hydrophilic properties of unset polyether and VPS impression materials were analyzed with respect to their water contact angle measurements using the commercially available Drop Shape Analysis System DSA 10. Twenty-five data points per second were collected via video analysis. There was no delay from start of measurement and data collection. Data was collected for approximately 12 s. Droplet size was determined on the thickness of canula. If the droplets became too small in volume, the water that evaporated during the measurement was large in comparison to the volume of the droplet. Therefore, 5 [mu]l was chosen as the lowest volume. Five trials were conducted per series for each featured material. Contact angles were calculated using the circle fitting method. Three tests using this technique were designed to control the variables of contact angle measurement with regard to time, the varying amount of fluid in contact with impression material during clinical use, and material thickness. Sample thickness of impression material was controlled by stripping the paste flat on a glass plate using a marking template to ensure a constant film thickness. Tests were conducted in a climatized room at 24[degrees]C [+ or -] 1[degrees]C. Deionized water was used as the fluid. The device was calibrated according to manufacturer's instruction for Young-Laplace fitting prior to the measurements. Results were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey test, and t-test, as appropriate. Results: Comparing the fast setting impression materials by One-Way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < .05) revealed the initial contact angles to range from 66.2 [+ or -] 1.5[degrees] to 127.5 [+ or -] 4.4[degrees], of which the polyether material was the lowest after 45 s (66.2 [+ or -] 1.5[degrees]), 120 s (70.3 [+ or -] 2.8[degrees]), and 24 h (80.3 [+ or -] 1.0[degrees]) after start of the mix. The selected times represent the different stages of unset material, ranging from 45 s as the earliest practical data collection time to 24 h, at which a stone model would be poured. The polyether materials tested exhibited lower contact angles and, thus, significantly higher initial hydrophilicity than all measured VPS materials. Additionally, Impregum impression materials are more hydrophilic in the unset stage than in the set stage. VPS may show a stepwise development of hydrophilicity in the set stage that was not observed in the unset stage. Conclusions: The polyether impression materials tested were significantly more hydrophilic before, during, and after setting than that of VPS impression materials. Regardless of the amount of water in contact with the impression material, the polyether impression materials showed a significantly higher hydrophilicity in the unset stage than the VPS materials. The initial contact angle was not dependent on the thickness of the material. All parameters, including variation of time, volume of water droplet, and thickness of material, resulted in different absolute contact angles, but did not lead to a dramatic change in the ranking of the materials with regard to their hydrophilic behavior. Author Affiliation: (1)Associate Dean for Research, Professor, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. (2)Scientific Affairs Manager, Research Department, 3M ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany. (3)Senior Student, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. (4)Associate Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. (5)Assistant Professor, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. Article History: Accepted July 19, 2006 Article note: Correspondence to: Gerard Kugel, DMD, MS, PhD, Associate Dean for Research, Professor, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Room No. 1015, 1 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111. E-mail: gerard.kugel@tufts.edu