Article

Surfactant release from hydrophilized vinylpolysiloxanes.

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, D-35392 Giessen, Germany.
Journal of dental research (Impact Factor: 4.14). 07/2009; 88(7):668-72. DOI: 10.1177/0022034509339721
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Vinylpolysiloxane impression materials (VPS) exhibit an apolar (hydrophobic) backbone chemistry. Hence, surfactants are added to improve their hydrophilicity for impression-taking in moist environments. However, the mechanisms at the liquid-VPS-interface regarding the surfactant are unknown. We hypothesized that surfactant is leached from the VPS. Four experimental VPS formulations were fabricated containing 0 (control), 1.5, 3, and 5 wt% non-ionic surfactant. Samples were prepared (n = 6) and contact angles determined 30 min after mixing. After 60 sec, droplets were transferred onto the control. Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the droplets. Contact angles were inversely correlated with the surfactant concentration (p < 0.05). Droplets transferred from hydrophilized specimens onto the control showed similar contact angles. Surfactant could be clearly identified inside the droplets from the hydrophilized samples, however, not inside the control. Surfactants reduced the surface tension of the liquid in contact and did not change the surface properties of the VPS itself.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Bernd Wöstmann, Jun 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the main clinical or technical causes which may lead to the failure of PFM restorations. Althgouh it is a team work, the problems are not allways well identified and discussed between the members of the team. Methods: A comprehensive database has been gathered using a questionnaire of 23 questions for 30 dental technicians making mainly PFM restorations. Data were subjected to statistical analysis, converting the answers of the 30 questioned technicians, in percentages. Results: The main imperfections occurred in the impressions, were voids on the cervical area and the slide of the impression material from the occlusal surface. The main problem suggested by the dentists was the lack of fit of the PFM, which may derive from several mistakes of the dental technician, as inadeqaute proportion between liquid - powder for the dye gipsum and the delayed investment of the wax pattern of the metallic framework. Conclusions: Issues occured during the try-in of the PFMs in the oral cavity may be caused by both dentist and technicians. All these could be avoided with a
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to review impression materials used for fabricating fixed restorations in dentistry. Their compositions, properties, advantages, and disadvantages are presented and compared. How these properties influence clinical decisions is also described. This review helps the clinician choose which material is more suitable for a specific case. A broad search of the published literature was performed using Medline to identify pertinent current articles. Textbooks, the Internet, and manufacturers' literature were also used to supplement this information. It is limited to impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. The review gives basic knowledge of ideal impression material properties and discusses traditional and, primarily, more recently developed products, such as polyethers, poly(vinyl siloxane), polysulfides, and condensation silicone materials. Clear advantages and disadvantages for these impression materials are provided along with the role that compositional variations have on the outcome of the impression. This should enable clinicians and technicians to easily identify the important physical properties of each type of impression material and their primary clinical indications.
    Journal of Prosthodontics 02/2011; 20(2):153-60. DOI:10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Im zahntechnischen Labor hat sich die „Computer-aided-design/computer-aided manufacturing“(CAD/CAM)-Fertigung von festsitzendem Zahnersatz seit Jahren gut etabliert. Allerdings beginnt der digitale Prozess erst beim Scannen des auf herkömmliche Weise angefertigten Arbeitsmodells. Damit sind auch jedes auf Basis dieses Modells erzeugte virtuelle Modell und naturgemäß der im Folgenden angefertigte Zahnersatz ungenau, einerlei wie präzise der Scan-Vorgang an sich ist. Abhilfe lässt sich nur schaffen, wenn der Scan-Vorgang direkt in der Mundhöhle erfolgt. Das Prinzip ist nicht neu und wird vom „Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics or Ceramic Reconstruction System“ (CEREC-System, Fa. Sirona) seit nunmehr über 25 Jahren so verfolgt. Aufgrund seiner Ausrichtung auf direkt in der Praxis gefräste (Einzelzahn-)Restaurationen hat sich das CEREC-System aber bisher nicht als universelles Scan-System für die zahnärztliche Prothetik etablieren können. Neuere Scan-Systeme verfolgen dagegen einen universelleren Ansatz und erreichen dabei eine Präzision, die mit der mit konventionellen Abformtechniken erreichbaren Genauigkeit durchaus vergleichbar ist. Allerdings gilt es, die Vorteile der Scan-Verfahren gegenüber der herkömmlichen Abformung gegen die noch bestehenden Limitationen abzuwägen.
    Der Freie Zahnarzt 04/2013; 57(4):78-86. DOI:10.1007/s12614-012-1564-9