The influence of different mixing methods on the dimensional stability and surface detail reproduction of two different brands of irreversible hydrocolloids

Purpose: Irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials are some of the most common impression materials in dentistry. Preparation of alginate is critical for dental appliance fabricated upon the cast made directly from the impression. This study compared the effect of two mixing methods i.e. hand mixing or device mixing on the physical properties of two different brands of irreversible hydrocolloid. Materials and Methods: Two alginate impression materials: Cavex Tulip (Tulip, Cavex Holland BV, Haarlem, Holland) and Hydrogum Soft (Zhermack, Rovigo, Italy), were mixed according to manufacturers instroductions with two mixing methods. Mixing was performed at room temperature using tap water. The material was allowed to set in a water bath at 35°C (±1°C), simulating intra-oral setting conditions. For each tested material, nine standardized samples were used. The first method was hand mixing; the other method was with a device. Detail reproduction and dimensional changes of impressions were compared. One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the dimensional differences between the four groups. Results: The device mixed speciemens showed better surface detail than hand-mixed samples. Cavex alginate demonstrated better surface detail than Hydrogum. Cavex Tulip alginate showed better dimensional stability than Hydrogum Soft in both hand-mixed and device-mixed samples. Furthermore, all device mixed samples were better than hand-mixed in terms of dimensional stability. A two-way analysis of variance and Fisher′s protected least significant difference test at the 0.05 level of significance were used to analyze the data. Conclusion: Of the two mixing methods, the vacuum mixer had the best performance overall in reducing the number, percent and volume of porosities in the mixed alginate.

[1]  M. Wevers,et al.  The influence of mixing methods and disinfectant on the physical properties of alginate impression materials. , 2013, European journal of orthodontics.

[2]  D. Çakır,et al.  Evaluation of outgassing, tear strength, and detail reproduction in alginate substitute materials. , 2012, Operative dentistry.

[3]  D. Radford,et al.  Dimensional stability of newer alginate impression materials over seven days. , 2010, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[4]  K. Vandewalle,et al.  Microtomographic porosity determination in alginate mixed with various methods. , 2010, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[5]  Gary N Frey,et al.  Effect of mixing methods on mechanical properties of alginate impression materials. , 2005, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[6]  P. Spencer,et al.  Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  K. Inoue,et al.  Effect of mixing method on rheological properties of alginate impression materials. , 2002, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[8]  R. Clark,et al.  Some effects of disinfecting solutions on the properties of alginate impression material and dental stone. , 2001, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[9]  D. Wood,et al.  The effect of disinfecting alginate and addition cured silicone rubber impression materials on the physical properties of impressions and resultant casts. , 1998, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[10]  Steven M. Morgano,et al.  Effects of chemical disinfectant solutions on the stability and accuracy of the dental impression complex. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  C. S. Teo,et al.  Porosities in five automixed addition silicone elastomers. , 1991, Operative dentistry.

[12]  R. Koski Comparative study of selected alginate materials and devices. , 1977, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[13]  G. Soh,et al.  Relationship of viscosity to porosities in automixed elastomeric impressions. , 1991, Clinical materials.