Cargando…

Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure

Adhesive restorations have been shown to guarantee excellent performance and longevity, although this comes with some disadvantages. Among these, the vulnerability of dentine to different agents has been widely evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible penetration of impression m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sinjari, Bruna, D’Addazio, Gianmaria, Xhajanka, Edit, Caputi, Sergio, Varvara, Giuseppe, Traini, Tonino
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32183299
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13061321
_version_ 1783519705039896576
author Sinjari, Bruna
D’Addazio, Gianmaria
Xhajanka, Edit
Caputi, Sergio
Varvara, Giuseppe
Traini, Tonino
author_facet Sinjari, Bruna
D’Addazio, Gianmaria
Xhajanka, Edit
Caputi, Sergio
Varvara, Giuseppe
Traini, Tonino
author_sort Sinjari, Bruna
collection PubMed
description Adhesive restorations have been shown to guarantee excellent performance and longevity, although this comes with some disadvantages. Among these, the vulnerability of dentine to different agents has been widely evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible penetration of impression materials into freshly cut dentine. Dentine from 27 teeth was impressed with polyether (Impregum Penta L) (nine teeth) and with polyvinyl siloxane (Aquasil Ultra LV) (nine teeth). The surface of nine teeth after the impressions were used as the control. Specifically, the extroflections caused by the imprinting of the dentinal tubules on the impression material, the so-called impression tags, were measured. Furthermore, the presence of the material inside the tubules was examined. Scanning electron microscopy analysis showed material tags for all of the experimental groups. The mean lengths (±SD) were 22.6 (±11.0) µm for polyether, 21.8 (±12.8) µm for polyvinyl siloxane and 11.3 (±7.0) µm for the tooth control, with mean diameters (±SD) of 2.8 (±0.5), 2.4 (±0.7) and 3.1 (±0.7) µm, respectively. Fractal analysis showed fractal dimensions of 1.78 (±0.03), 1.77 (±0.03) and 1.71 (±0.03), respectively. These data demonstrated that the impression materials can remain inside the dentinal tubules, which can adversely affect the adhesive procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7143836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71438362020-04-14 Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure Sinjari, Bruna D’Addazio, Gianmaria Xhajanka, Edit Caputi, Sergio Varvara, Giuseppe Traini, Tonino Materials (Basel) Article Adhesive restorations have been shown to guarantee excellent performance and longevity, although this comes with some disadvantages. Among these, the vulnerability of dentine to different agents has been widely evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible penetration of impression materials into freshly cut dentine. Dentine from 27 teeth was impressed with polyether (Impregum Penta L) (nine teeth) and with polyvinyl siloxane (Aquasil Ultra LV) (nine teeth). The surface of nine teeth after the impressions were used as the control. Specifically, the extroflections caused by the imprinting of the dentinal tubules on the impression material, the so-called impression tags, were measured. Furthermore, the presence of the material inside the tubules was examined. Scanning electron microscopy analysis showed material tags for all of the experimental groups. The mean lengths (±SD) were 22.6 (±11.0) µm for polyether, 21.8 (±12.8) µm for polyvinyl siloxane and 11.3 (±7.0) µm for the tooth control, with mean diameters (±SD) of 2.8 (±0.5), 2.4 (±0.7) and 3.1 (±0.7) µm, respectively. Fractal analysis showed fractal dimensions of 1.78 (±0.03), 1.77 (±0.03) and 1.71 (±0.03), respectively. These data demonstrated that the impression materials can remain inside the dentinal tubules, which can adversely affect the adhesive procedures. MDPI 2020-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7143836/ /pubmed/32183299 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13061321 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Sinjari, Bruna
D’Addazio, Gianmaria
Xhajanka, Edit
Caputi, Sergio
Varvara, Giuseppe
Traini, Tonino
Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title_full Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title_fullStr Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title_full_unstemmed Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title_short Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure
title_sort penetration of different impression materials into exposed dentinal tubules during the impression procedure
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32183299
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13061321
work_keys_str_mv AT sinjaribruna penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure
AT daddaziogianmaria penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure
AT xhajankaedit penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure
AT caputisergio penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure
AT varvaragiuseppe penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure
AT trainitonino penetrationofdifferentimpressionmaterialsintoexposeddentinaltubulesduringtheimpressionprocedure