• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.63-67
• /
• 2009

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Use of custom tray and tray adhesive is clinically recommended for elastomeric impression material. However there is not clear mention of drying time of tray adhesive in achieving appropriate bonding strength of tray material and impression material. PURPOSE. This study is to investigate an appropriate drying time of tray adhesives by evaluating tensile bonding strength between two types of polyvinylsiloxane impression materials and resin tray, according to various drying time intervals of tray adhesives, and with different manufacturing company combination of impression material and tray adhesive. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Adhesives used in this study were Silfix (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and VPS Tray Adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and impression materials were Aquasil Ultra (monophase regular set, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del, USA) and Imprint II Garant (regular body, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). They were used combinations from the same manufacture and exchanged combinations of the two. The drying time was designed to air dry, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. Total 240 of test specimens were prepared by auto-polymerizing tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Il, USA) with 10 specimens in each group. The specimens were placed in the Universal Testing machine (Instron, model 3366, Instron Corp, University avenue, Nowood, MA, USA) to perform the tensile test (cross head speed 5 mm/min). The statistically efficient drying time was evaluated through ANOVA and Scheffe test. All the tests were performed at 95% confidence level. RESULTS. The results revealed that at least 10 minutes is needed for Silfix-Aquasil, and 15 minutes for VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II, to attain an appropriate tensile bonding strength. VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength when compared to Silfix-Aquasil over 15 minutes. Silfix-Aquasil had a superior bonding strength to VPS Tray Adhesive-Aquasil, and VPS Tray Adhesive-Imprint II had a superior tensile bonding strength to Silfix-Imprint II at all drying periods. CONCLUSION. Significant increase in tensile bonding strength with Silfix-Aquasil and VPS Tray adhesive-Imprint II combination until 10 and 15 minutes respectively. Tray adhesive-impression material combination from the same company presented higher tensile bonding strength at all drying time intervals than when using tray adhesive-impression material of different manufactures.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.650-658
• /
• 2000

This study was investigated to compare the bond strength of polysulfide adhesive between tray resin and border molding materials and to evaluate the effect of saliva contamination on them. We made the 135 resin tray secimens with a dimension of $1{\times}1{\times}1cm$ and divided them into 3 groups by the materials 1) Quicky group, 2) Compound group, and 3) Impregum group Each group was subdivided by saliva contimination. Group S1 : applied adhesive without saliva contamination Group S2 : applied adhesive after drying 15seconds after saliva contamination Group S3 : applied adhesive no after saliva contamination. Tensile tests were performed with a Universal Load testing machine. Results showed Impregum group significantly higher bond strength than Quicky group, but there was no significant difference in adhesive bond strength between Compound group and Quicky group in experimental group by materials In experimental group by saliva contamination, S1 group is significantly higher bond strength than S2 group and S2 group is significantly higher bond strength than S3 group in Quicky group and S1, S2 group is significantly higher bond strength than S3 group in Compound group and Impregum group. Impression compound and Impregum F which are usually used as an individual tray border mold-ing material can be said to be satisfied in adhesive bond strength to polysulfide impression materials. After try-in and clinical adjustment are performed, a custom tray should be properly rinsed and air dried before tray adhesive was placed.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.351-365
• /
• 2001

For accurate impression taking, accurate impression material, solid individual tray, and bond strength between impression materials and resin tray are important factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tensile bond strength of rubber impression materials to various tray resin materials. This study tested the time dependent tensile bond strength between commercial brands or poly ether, polysulfide, additional silicone impression materials and commercial brands of self curing tray resin. light activited tray resin when applying adhesive Resin specimens were made with 20mm in diameter, 2mm in thickness. 1 made total 360 specimens, 10 per each group and the tensile bond strength was measured by using the Instron($M100EC^{(R)}$, Mecmesin Co., England). The results were as follows ; Comparisons of various impression materials. 1. In case of Impregum $F^{(R)}$, the bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Ostron $100^{(R)}$ Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$, $Lightplast^{(R)}$. All groups excluding Ostron $100^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$ are significant difference (p<0.05). Drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was insignificantly decreased in order of 10 min drying time group. 1 min drying time group. 5 min drying time group. 2. In case of Permlastic $regular^{(R)}$ the bond strength of tray resin was insignificantly decreased in order of Ostron $100^{(R)}$. SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$ $Lightplast^{(R)}$. About drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was significantly decreased in order of 5 min drying time group, 10 min drying time group, 1 min drying time group(p<0.05). 3. In case of Exaflex $regular^{(R)}$. the bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of $Lightplast^{(R)}$, SR $Ivolen^{(R)}$, Instant tray $mix^{(R)}$, Ostron $100^{(R)}$. $Lightplast^{(R)}$ was significant difference(p<0.05). About drying time after applying adhesive, the tensile bond strength of tray resin was decreased in order of 5 min drying time group, 10 min drying time group, 1 min drying time group(p<0.05). Especially 5 min ding time group was significant difference(p<0.05). According to the results of this study, we can see the greatest tensile bond strength when using Impregrm $F^{(R)}$ and Permlastic $regular^{(R)}$ with self curing tray resin, when using Exaflex $regular^{(R)}$ with light activated tray resin In my opinion, adhesive should be dried more than 5 min before impression taking to achieve the greatest tensile bond strength.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.699-711
• /
• 2006

Statement of problem. Elastomeric impression materials have been widely used to obtain an accurate impression. However there have not been enough studies on the influence of the thickness of the tray adhesives on the bonding strength between the trays and the elastomeric impression materials. Purpose. In order to understand the relationship between the thickness of the tray adhesive and the tensile bond strength and to suggest the thickness at which the bonding strength is strongest, tensile bond strength related to the thickness of adhesives of 3 different elastomeric impression materials were tested. Materials and methods. 3 impression materials, $Permlastic^{(R)}$. Regular Set(Kerr Corp., Romulus, Michigan, U.S.A.), $Impregum^{TM}$ $Penta^{TM}$(3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), and Aquasil Ultra Monophase Regular Set Smart Wetting.(Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Delaware, U.S.A.), were used in this study, and tray adhesives from the same manufacturers of the impression materials were used, which were Rubber Base Adhesive, Polyether Adhesive, and Silfix, respectively. The tray specimens were prepared by autopolymerizing the tray material(Instant Tray Mix, Lang, Wheeling, Illinois, U.S.A.), and a PVC pipe was used to house the impression material. In group A, tray adhesives were applied in multiple thin layers of 1 to 5 and in group B, adhesives were applied only once, in the thickness equivalent to several applications. Lightness($L^*$) of the adhesion surface was measured with a spectrophotometer(CM-3500d, Konica Minolta, Sakai, Osaka, Japan). The tensile bond strength of the elastomeric impression material and the tray resin was measured with universal materials testing machines(Instron, Model 3366, Instron Corp, Nowood, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). A formula between the number of adhesive application layers and the lightness of the adhesion surface was deduced in group A, and the number of adhesive layers in group B was estimated by applying the lightness($L^*$) to the deduced formula. Results. 1. In group A, a statistically significant increase in tensile bond strength appeared when the number of application layers increased from 1 to 2 and from 4 to 5, and no significant difference was present between 2, 3, and 4 layers in Permlastic. In Impregum, the tensile bond strength was significantly increased when the number of adhesive layers increased from 1 to 3, but no significant difference after 3 layers. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength significantly increased as the number of application layers increased up to 4 but showed no significant difference between 4 and 5. 2. In group B, the tensile bond strength was decreased when the thickness of the adhesive increased in Permlastic. Impregum showed an increased tensile bond strength when the thickness of the adhesive was increased. In Aquasil, the tensile bond strength increased as the number of adhesive application layers increased up to approximately 2.5 layers but it sharply decreased after approximately 4.5. Conclusion. From the study, the common idea that it is better to apply a thin and single coat of tray adhesive needs correction in more detailed ways, and instructions on some of the tray adhesives should be reconsidered since there were several cases in which the tensile bond strength increased according to the increase in the thickness of the adhesives.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.290-298
• /
• 1996

The effects of impression tray disinfection procedures on the bond strength of impression-material adhesive to two of types resin trays were evaluated with a tensile test. Autopolyme-rizing acrylic resin was formed into 1x1x1 cm cubes. A hook was attached to each cube with autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Perforated trays were fabricated with stops to maintain an even 3 cm of impression material over the resin block. Hook on the opposite side of the perforated tray permitted attachment of the metal plate to a mechanical testing machine. Before adhesive was applied, one third of the resin specimens were immersed in a 5% sodium hypochlorite solution : one third in a 2% glutaradehyde solution, and one third were kept in the "as fabricated" condition. Three products(Perfect ups, Exafine, and Exp-ress) of polyvynil siloxane impression material-adhesive system were evaluated. The resin-impression material-metal plate couples were attached to a mechanical testing machine and tensile forces were applied at a separation rate of 10 centimeters per second. The results were as follows; 1. Both disinfectant and adhesive had effects on bond strength values, but adhesive had more effect than disinfectant(p<0.01). However, there was no interaction between dinin-fectant and adhesive(p>0.01). 2. Mean bond strength values for the Perfect materials were about 85% less than that of the Exafine or the Express materials. However, there was no stastically significant difference between the mean bond strength values of the Exafine materials and the Express materials(p>0.05). 3. The use of disinfectants produced significant reduction in bond strength values(p<0.05). But there was no stastically significant difference between the mean bond strength values of the groups treated with disinfectants(p>0.05).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.492-501
• /
• 2001

The use of alginate impression materials today is prevalent because of its efficiency and simplicity in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the procedure tends to lull the dentist into a sense of well-being, and lead him into using careless or sloppy technique. Alginate impression materials are used to fabricate diagnostic and preliminary casts, and the final cast. Incorrect use of this material is known to affect the accuracy of the final prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of different mixing methods of alginate impression material and tray adhesive on the accuracy of the stone cast produced by each method. A total of 30 stone casts were produced by using 3 different types of mixing methods (10 stone cast for each mixing method, respectively). The first method utilized an automatic-mixing machine to mix alginate while the second method was carried out manually, strictly following manufacturer's instructions. The third method also involved manual mixing, but did not follow the manufacturer's instructions and was done in a random fashion. Also, 20 additional stone casts were produced by using alginate with or without tray adhesives were included in the study to evaluate effects of tray adhesives on the accuracy of alginate impression. 10 stone casts were produced by adding tray adhesives to the interior surface of the impression tray prior to taking the impression. The other 10 excluded this step. A total of 50 stone casts were analyzed by the three-dimensional measuring machine to measure and compare the dimensional changes of the impression material of each group. The results are as follows. 1. No significant difference was found between the automatic mixing group and the manually-mixing group(p>0.05). 2. For the group that followed manufacturer's instructions, less dimensional changes were record ed than the group that didn't in measuring distanced 4(p<0.05). 3. The group that used tray adhesives showed less dimensional changes(p<0.05). The findings revealed that mechanical methods of mixing alginate impression materials had little influence on dimensional changes. However, it is proven that following manufacturers instructions in alginate impression taking is an important step in acquiring accurate impressions and tray adhesives may play an important role in enhancing the results.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.155-163
• /
• 1989

Indirect bonding is done by placing the brackets on a model in the laboratory and using a template or tray to transfer the laboratory positioning to the teeth. The advantages of this technique are 1. decreased chair time 2. less patient discomfort 3. accuracy of a attachment placement 4. good adaptation of attachment to tooth contour 5. occlusal relationship of brackets and opposing teeth can be checked The disadvantages of the technique are 1. complex laboratory procedure 2. sometimes difficult on very short clinical crowns 3. teeth with crowns, large buccal restoration will not bond 4. may not be fitted close, if poor adaptation 5. likely to be disturbed setting Several indirect bonding techniques have proved reliable in clinical practice. However, they differ in the way the brackets are attached temporarily to the model, the type of transfer tray or other mechanism used, the adhesive or sealant employed, whether segmented or full bonding used, and the way the transfer is removed so as not to exert excessive force on a still maturing bond.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.37 no.7 s.362
• /
• pp.530-535
• /
• 1999

Detailed finishing of the occlusion is a clinical skill that has become difficult with the development of fixed appliances. Accuracy of bracket placement definitely improves with indirect technique, Several methods for the placement of orthodontic brackets on dental casts are currently used in the indirect bonding technique. These include attachment by means of bonding resins, adhesive tapes or sticky wax. This article presents the indirect procedures of our clinic, which use paste-paste chemically cured composites. Detailed laboratory and clinical procedure for dual tray method and other application of indirect bonding will be presented.

• Food Science and Preservation
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.158-165
• /
• 2013

This study aimed at investigating the quality changes of Yukwa during storage using the various item packaging methods present in the domestic market. The samples consisted of a self-adhesive-oriented polypropylene (OPP) film pouch (P1), a heat-sealed OPP film pouch (P2), and a polystyrene (PS) tray with a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) lid (P3). These were stored at $25^{\circ}C$ up to eight weeks. Throughout the storage period, the acid values of all the study samples remained under the Korean hygiene regulation limit of 2.0 mg KOH/g. The P2 samples showed both the slowest decrease in water content and the slowest increase in hardness value during storage. Sensory evaluation also showed that the P2 samples were the only ones that maintained their market value of 5.0 throughout the eight-week assessment period.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.28 no.2 s.67
• /
• pp.277-284
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the propriety of making use of the light-cured resin base in indirect bracket bonding technique by study of shear bond strength and failure patterns according to the material of resin base. Metal brackets were bonded to the stone models of specimens involving bovine lower incisor with chemical-cured(Excel), light-cured(Light-Bond) and thermal-cured(Therma-Cure) resin. They were transferred to the specimens and bonded using sealant. The shear bond strength was tested on Instron. After bracket removal, the bracket base was examined and assessed with the adhesive remnant index(ARI). The results were as follows : 1. No significant differences in shear bond strength were found among the three groups (P>0.05). 2. No significant differences in ARI score were found among the three groups (P>0.05). The above results suggest that light-cured resin base in addition to chemical-cured and thermal-cured resin bases is useful in the indirect bonding technique.