ArticleBMC oral health2024
Assessment of dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material at different time intervals with standard disinfectants.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dimensional Accuracy of Novel Vinyl Polysiloxane Compared with Polyether Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVinyl polyether silicone (VPES) is a novel impression biomaterial made of a combination of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE). Thus, it is significant to assess its properties and behaviour under varied disinfectant test conditions. This study aimed to assess the dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material after immersion in standard disinfectants for different time intervals.
methodsElastomeric impression material used -medium body regular set (Monophase) [Exa'lence GC America]. A total of 84 Specimens were fabricated using stainless steel die and ring (ADA specification 19). These samples were distributed into a control group (n=12) and a test group (n=72). The test group was divided into 3 groups, based on the type of disinfectant used - Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde, Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite and Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine each test group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n=12/subgroup) based on time intervals for which each sample was immersed in the disinfectants - subgroup-1- 10 mins and Subgroup 2- 30 mins. After the impression material was set, it was removed from the ring and then it was washed in water for 15 seconds. Control group measurements were made immediately on a stereomicroscope and other samples were immersed in the three disinfection solutions for 10 mins and 30 mins to check the dimensional stability by measuring the distance between the lines generated by the stainless steel die on the samples using a stereomicroscope at x40 magnification.
resultsThe distance measured in the control group was 4397.2078 µm and 4396.1571 µm; for the test group Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde was 4396.4075 µm and 4394.5992 µm; Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite was 4394.5453 µm and 4389.4711 µm Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine was 4395.2953 µm and 4387.1703 µm respectively for 10 mins and 30 mins. Percentage dimensional change was in the range of 0.02 - 0.25 for all the groups for 10 mins and 30 mins.
conclusions2 % Glutaraldehyde is the most suitable disinfectant for VPES elastomeric impression material in terms of dimensional stability and shows minimum dimensional changes as compared to that of 2% Chlorhexidine and 0.5% Sodium hypochlorite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.