Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(2) > 1034566

TOOLS
Kim, Moon, Shim, and Jung: Changes of the surface roughness depending on immersion time and powder/liquid ratio of various tissue conditioners
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(2):108-118.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.108

Changes of the surface roughness depending on immersion time and powder/liquid ratio of various tissue conditioners

Kyung-Soo Kim, DDS, MSD1, Hong-Suk Moon, MSD, DDS, PhD2, June-Sung Shim, MSD, DDS, PhD2, Moon-Kyu Jung, DDS, MSD, PhD3, ∗

1Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

2Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

3Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

Corresponding Author: Moon-Kyu Jung Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 134 Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, Korea +82-2-2228-3162, mkchung@yuhs.ac

Received 16 July 200823 October 2008       Accepted 28 October 2008

Copyright © 2009 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

Volume stability, microstructure reproducibility and fluidity along with compatibility with dental stone must be in consideration in order to use tissue conditioner as a material for functional impression. There are few studies concerning the influence of time factor in oral condition on surface roughness of the stone and optimal retention period in the oral cavity considering such changes in surface roughness.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to find out the influence of various kinds of tissue conditioner, its powder/liquid ratio and immersion time on surface roughness of the stone.

Material and methods

Materials used in this study were the three kinds of tissue conditioners (Coe-Comfort, Visco-Gel, Soft-Liner) and were grouped into three: group R - mixed with standard powder/liquid ratio that was recommended by the manufacturers, group M - mixed with 20% more powder, group L - mixed with 20% less powder. Specimens were made with the size of 20 mm diameter and 2 mm width. Each tissue conditioner specimens were subdivided into 5 groups according to the immersion time (0 hour, 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days), completely immersed into artificial saliva and were stored under 37° C. Specimens of which the given immersion time elapsed were taken out and were poured with improved stone, making the stone specimens. Surface roughness of the stone specimens was measured by a profilometer.

Results

Within the limitation of this study, the following results were drawn. 1. Major influencing factor on surface roughness of the stone model made from tissue conditioner was the retention period (contribution ratio (ρ) = 62.86%, P < .05) of the tissue conditioner in oral cavity to make functional impression. 2. In case of Coe-Comfort, higher mean surface roughness value of the stone model with statistical significance was observed compared to that of Soft-Liner and Visco-Gel as immersion time changes (P < .05). 3. In case of group L (less), higher mean surface roughness value of the stone model with statistical significance was observed compared to that of R (recommended) and M (more) group as immersion time changes (P < .05).

Conclusion

We may conclude that as the retention period of time in oral cavity influences surface roughness of the stone model the most and as the kind of tissue conditioner and its P/L ratio may influence also, clinician should well understand the optimal retention period in oral cavity and choose the right tissue conditioner for the functional impression, thus making the functional impression with tissue conditioner usefully.

Keywords: functional impression, tissue conditioner, surface roughness, powder/liquid ratio, immersion time

REFERENCES

1.Bergman B., Carlsson GE. Clinical long-term study of complete denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 53:56–61.
crossref
2.Lamine GA. The retention of complete dentures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1957. 55:502–8.
3.Zarb GA.., Bolender CL. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients. 12th.Mosby;2004. p. 471–480.
4.Boucher CO. The relining of complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1973. 30:521–6.
crossref
5.Chase WW. Tissue conditioning utilizing dynamic adaptive stress. J Prosthet Dent. 1961. 11:804–15.
crossref
6.Harrison A. Temporary soft lining materials. A review of their uses. Br Dent J. 1981. 151:419–22.
crossref
7.McCarthy JA., Moser JB. Tissue conditioners as functional impression materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1978. 5:357–64.
crossref
8.McCarthy JA., Moser JB. Tissue conditioning and functional impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 1984. 28:239–51.
9.Jones DW., Hall GC., Sutow EJ., Langman MF., Robertson KN. Chemical and molecular weight analyses of prostho-dontic soft polymers. J Dent Res. 1991. 70:874–9.
crossref
10.Jones DW., Sutow EJ., Hall GC., Tobin WM., Graham BS. Dental soft polymers: plasticizer composite and leachabili-ty. Dent Mater. 1988. 4:1–7.
11.Parker S., Braden M. Formulation of tissue conditioners. Biomaterials. 1990. 11:579–84.
crossref
12.Wilson J. In vitro loss of alcohol from tissue conditioners. Int J Prosthodont. 1992. 5:17–21.
13.Murata H., Kawamura M., Hamada T., Saleh S., Kresnoadi U., Toki K. Dimensional stability and weight changes of tissue conditioners. J Oral Rehabil. 2001. 28:918–23.
crossref
14.Graham BS., Jones DW., Sutow EJ. Clinical implications of resilient denture lining material research. Part I: Flexibility and elasticity. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:421–8.
crossref
15.Murata H., Hamada T., Djulaeha E., Nikawa H. Rheology of tissue conditioners. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 79:188–99.
crossref
16.Jepson NJ., McCabe JF., Storer R. Age changes in the viscoelasticity of a temporary soft lining material. J Dent. 1993. 21:244–7.
17.Murata H., McCabe JF., Jepson NJ., Hamada T. The influence of immersion solutions on the viscoelasticity of temporary soft lining materials. Dent Mater. 1996. 12:19–24.
crossref
18.Pissiotis A., Panagiotouni E., Sofou A., Diakoyanni I., Kaloyannides A. Dimensional stability and reproduction of surface detail of tissue conditioning materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1994. 3:55–9.
19.Malmstro ¨m HS., Mehta N., Sanchez R., Moss ME. The effect of two different coatings on the surface integrity and softness of a tissue conditioner. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:153–7.
20.Keuter FM., Davidson CL. Surface roughness of dental stone casts from alginate impressions. J Dent. 1986. 14:23–8.
crossref
21.Gerrow JD., Schneider RL. A comparison of the compatibility of elastomeric impression materials, type IV dental stones, and liquid media. J Prosthet Dent. 1987. 57:292–8.
crossref
22.Reisbick MH., Johnston WM., Rashid RG. Irreversible hydrocolloid and gypsum interactions. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:7–13.
23.Johnson GH., Chellis KD., Gordon GE., Lepe X. Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 79:446–53.
crossref
24.Jung CM. Atlas of Chairside Relining Technique. Shinhung International, Inc.;2001. p. 49–56.
25.Murata H., Hong G., Li YA., Hamada T. Compatibility of tissue conditioners and dental stones: effect on surface roughness. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 93:274–81.
crossref
26.Wilson HJ., Tomlin HR., Osborne J. The assessment of temporary soft materials used in prosthetics. Br Dent J. 1969. 126:303–6.
27.Murata H., Hamada T., Taguchi N., Shigeto N., Nikawa H. Viscoelastic properties of tissue conditioners—influence of molecular weight of polymer powders and powder/liquid ratio and the clinical implications. J Oral Rehabil. 1998. 25:621–9.
28.Casey DM., Scheer EC. Surface treatment of a temporary soft liner for increased longevity. J Prosthet Dent. 1993. 69:318–24.
crossref
29.Gardner LK., Parr GR. Extending the longevity of temporary soft liners with a mono-poly coating. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:71–2.
crossref
30.Dominguez NE., Thomas CJ., Gerzina TM. Tissue conditioners protected by a poly(methyl methacrylate) coating. Int J Prosthodont. 1996. 9:137–41.
31.Gronet PM., Driscoll CF., Hondrum SO. Resiliency of surface-sealed temporary soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 77:370–4.
crossref
32.Corwin JO., Saunders TR. Temporary soft liners: a modified curing technique to extend liner longevity. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 68:714–5.
crossref
33.Gerrard WA., Winter PJ. Evaluation of toothpastes by their ability to assist rehardening of enamel in vitro. Caries Res. 1986. 20:209–16.

Fig. 1.
Profilometer (a. vertical movement handle, b. set meter, c. rolling leg, d. stylus, e. fixation jig)
jkap-47-108f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at recommended P/L ratio.
jkap-47-108f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at more P/L ratio
jkap-47-108f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at less P/L ratio
jkap-47-108f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by P/L ratios in Coe-Comfort specimen.
jkap-47-108f5.tif
Fig. 6.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by P/L ratios in Soft-Liner specimen
jkap-47-108f6.tif
Fig. 7.
Comparison of mean surface roughness by P/L ratios in Visco-Gel specimen
jkap-47-108f7.tif
Table I.
Tissue conditioners in this study
Brand Composition of powder Composition of liquid Recommended P/L ratio (wt)
Plasticizer Solvent
COE-COMFORTTM PEMA BB (benzyl benzoate) Ethyl alcohol 0.9
(Polyethyl methacrylate) DBP (dibutyl phthalate)    
Visco-Gel PEMA BPBG (butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate) Ethyl alcohol 1.25
(Polyethyl methacrylate)      
PMMA DBP (dibutyl phthalate)    
(Polymethyl methacrylate)      
SOFT-LINER PEMA BPBG (butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate) Ethyl alcohol 1.22
(Polyethyl methacrylate) DBP (dibutyl phthalate)    
Table II.
Composition of artificial saliva
Distilled water 2000 ml
Gastric mucin 4.4 g
NaCl 0.762 g
CaCl2∙2H2O 0.426 g
KH2PO4 1.476 g
KCl 2.228 g
pH 6.8
Table III.
Powder/liquid ratio of the experiment group
Brand Group Powder Liquid P/L ratio (wt)
COE-COMFORTTM CM 7.20 g 5 cc (6.67 g) 1.08
CR 6.00 g 5 cc (6.67 g) 0.90
CL 4.80 g 5 cc (6.67 g) 0.72
Visco-gel VM 3.60 g 2.2 cc (2.4 g) 1.50
VR 3.00 g 2.2 cc (2.4 g) 1.25
VL 2.40 g 2.2 cc (2.4 g) 1.00
SOFT-LINER SM 2.64 g 1.8 g 1.47
SR 2.20 g 1.8 g 1.22
SL 1.76 g 1.8 g 0.98
Table VI.
Results of three-way ANOVA for surface roughness (Ra) of dental stone casts made from tissue conditioners
Source df Sum of square Mean Square F value Significance of F Contribution ratio ρ (%)
Tissue conditioner 2 13.438 6.719 1645.89 <.0001 18.2
P/L ratio 2 3.848 1.924 471.25 <.0001 5.21
Time 4 46.4 11.6 2841.61 <.0001 62.86
Tissue conditioner × Time 8 7.318 0.915 224.08 <.0001 9.91
P/L ratio × Time 8 1.677 0.21 51.34 <.0001 2.27
Tissue conditioner × P/L ratio× Time 20 0.401 0.02 4.91 <.0001 0.54
Residual 180 0.735 0.004     1
Total 224 73.816       100
Table VII.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at Recommended P/L ratio
  COE-COMFORTTM Visco-Gel SOFT-LINER
COE-COMFORTTM ∙ + +
Visco-Gel + ∙ -
SOFT-LINER + - ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

Table VIII.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at More P/L ratio
  COE-COMFORTTM Visco-Gel SOFT-LINER
COE-COMFORTTM ∙ + +
Visco-Gel + ∙ -
SOFT-LINER + - ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

Table IX.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by tissue conditioner types at Less P/L ratio
  COE-COMFORTTM Visco-Gel SOFT-LINER
COE-COMFORTTM ∙ + +
Visco-Gel + ∙ -
SOFT-LINER + - ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

Table X.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by P/L ratios at Coe-Comfort
  M R L
M ∙ - +
R - ∙ +
L + + ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

Table XI.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by P/L ratios at Soft-Liner
  M R L
M ∙ - +
R - ∙ +
L + + ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

Table XII.
Results of analysis through Bonferroni method at the α = 0.05 for mean surface roughness by P/L ratios at Visco-Gel
  M R L
M ∙ - +
R - ∙ +
L + + ∙

+ ; Significantly different

- ; Not significantly different

TOOLS
Similar articles