• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• 제1권2호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제38권5호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제39권4호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제34권2호
• /
• 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).

• 대한치과보철학회지
• /
• 제39권5호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과교정학회지
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• 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.

• 대한치과의사협회지
• /
• 제37권7호통권362호
• /
• 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.

• 한국식품저장유통학회지
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.158-165
• /
• 2013

국내 한과 업체들에서 생산하는 대용량포장제품은 포장개봉 후 장기보관의 어려움이 있는 것으로 지적되어 왔다. 따라서 최근 일부 업체를 중심으로 단위 소포장 방법을 적용하는 추세가 증가하고 있다. 본 연구는 한과 업체들에서 사용되는 다양한 단위 소포장 재질과 형태를 적용하여 실온 저장 중 품질변화와 저장성 차이를 비교하여 최적의 포장기술을 개발하고자 하였다. 유과시료들은 비포장구(C), 접착식 OPP 필름포장구(P1), 열봉함 OPP 필름포장구(P2)와 PS tray 포장구(P3)로 나누어 포장된 후 최대 8주까지 약 $25^{\circ}C$/상대습도 25% 내외의 조건으로 저장되었다. 저장 말기까지 모든 시료의 산가는 기준치인 2.0 mg KOH/g을 초과하지 않았다. P2 포장구에서는 저장 8주 동안 수분함량의 감소 폭이 가장 작았으며 저장 8주차까지 관능평가의 모든 항목에서 상품한계선인 5.0점 이상을 유지하여 조사된 시료들 중 가장 우수하게 평가되었다. 산가, 경도와 수분함량 등의 결과로 미루어볼 때 낱개 포장된 유과는 $25^{\circ}C$ 인큐베이터에서 최소 8주 이상의 저장한계를 가질 것으로 확인되었다. 한편, 유과는 여러 물리화학적 품질지표 중 수분감소 및 감량에 의한 경도 상실로 인하여 상품성과 저장성이 제한되므로 장기저장을 위해서는 우수한 수증기 차단성 포장재와 포장방법이 필수적이다. 이러한 관점에서 비밀봉식 접착필름과 tray를 이용한 포장방법은 밀봉필름을 이용한 포장방법과 비교하여 작업성이 떨어질 뿐 아니라 작업 시 포장재의 수증기차단성 및 접착 정도가 유과 제품의 저장 중 품질변화 정도에 크게 영향을 미치는 요인으로 작용할 것으로 사료된다.

• 대한치과교정학회지
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.277-284
• /
• 1998

본 연구의 목적은 브라켓 간접부착술식에서 레진 베이스의 재료에 따른 전단결합강도와 파절양상을 비교해 봄으로써 광중합형 레진 베이스 사용의 타당성을 평가해보는데 있다. 소의 하악 중절치를 포매하여 만든 시편의 석고 모형에 화학중합형 레진 접착제인 Excel과 광중합형 레진 접착제인 Light-Bond 및 열중합형 레진 접착제 인 Therma-Cure를 이용하여 금속 브라켓을 위치시 킨 후 transfer tray를 사용하여 시편에 옮겨 부착한 다음 만능물성 시험기를 이용하여 전단결합강도를 측정하고, 파절양상을 관찰하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. 평균 전단결합강도가 화학중합형 레진 베이스를 사용한 군에서 $154.20{\pm}35.53kg/cm^2$, 광중합형 레진 베이스를 사용한 군에서 $148.61{\pm}39.21kg/cm^2$, 열중합형 레진 베이스를 사용한 군에서 $145.69{\pm}36.69kg/cm^2$로 나타났으며, 세군간에 유의한 차이가 없었다 (P>0.05). 2. 접착제 잔류지수를 통하여 파절양상을 비교 관찰한 결과 세 군간에 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다(P>0.05). 이상의 실험결과는 브라켓 간접부착술식에서 레진 베이스의 재료로 화학중합형, 열중합형 레진과 함께 광중합형 레진도 사용될 수 있음을 시사하였다.