Publication: Effects of disinfection procedures on surface quality of compound impressions and the resultant gypsum casts.
Accepted Date
2012-09-19
Issued Date
2014-01
Resource Type
Language
eng
ISSN
0125-5614 (printed)
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
Faculty of Dentistry Mahidol University
Bibliographic Citation
Sinavarat P, Visayrath S. Effects of disinfection procedures on surface quality of compound impressions and the resultant gypsum casts. M Dent J. 2014; 34(1): 19-27.
Suggested Citation
Potchaman Sinavarat, พจมาน ศรีนวรัตน์, Saysana Visayrath Effects of disinfection procedures on surface quality of compound impressions and the resultant gypsum casts.. Sinavarat P, Visayrath S. Effects of disinfection procedures on surface quality of compound impressions and the resultant gypsum casts. M Dent J. 2014; 34(1): 19-27.. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/1150
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Effects of disinfection procedures on surface quality of compound impressions and the resultant gypsum casts.
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of disinfection procedures on the detail
reproduction of type I impression compound and the surface quality of the
gypsum casts poured against the disinfected impressions.
Materials and methods: To make the specimens for detail reproduction test,
thirty-five compound impressions of a brass test block (ADA Specification no.
3) were made. These impressions were divided into 7 groups. Five impressions
were randomly chosen for each of the disinfectant-method combinations and
control groups. For the six experimental groups, impressions were disinfected
using either spraying with or immersion in 2.4% glutaraldehyde (Cidex), or 1:
213 iodophor (IodoFive) or 0.525% sodium hypochlorite (Hi-chlor). Five
non-disinfected impressions served as controls. Each impression was visually
evaluated for detail reproduction before and after disinfection and then
poured with Type III dental stone. The resultant stone casts were evaluated
for detail reproduction. To assess the surface roughness of the stone
specimens, another thirty-five compound impressions of a glass slide were
made and five impressions were randomly chosen to subject to each
disinfection protocol as described in the detail reproduction test. All
impressions were poured with dental stone. The surface roughness of the
casts was recorded using a profilometer. The average surface roughness was
compared using Tukey HSD test at 95% confidence interval.
Results: The surfaces of compound impressions did not deteriorate after
disinfection with Cidex or IodoFive but deterioration was noted after spraying
with or immersion in Hi-chlor. The stone casts obtained from Cidex and
IodoFive groups showed smooth surfaces and continuous fine lines while
degradation of the casts occurred when compound impressions were
subjected to Hi-chlor. The average surface roughness of the casts obtained
from Hi-chlor spray and immersion were significantly different from each other
and from the remaining groups (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Cidex and IodoFive using as spray or immersion disinfection did
not deteriorate the surfaces of compound impressions and the stone casts.
Loss of surface detail and surface porosity could be observed after
disinfection with Hi-chlor.