Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1129-1136
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759697
Original Article

The Effects of Abutment Finish Lines on the Penetration Characteristics of Elastomers into the Simulated Gingival Sulcus

Atiwat Jaroenpiboon 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Pongsakorn Apinsathanon 
2   Private Practice, PSK Dental Center, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Pheeradej Na Nan 
3   National Cyber Security Agency, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Napapa Aimjirakul 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding and Sponsorship This study was supported by funding number 287/2564 of Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the effect of finish lines on the penetration ability of polyether and polyvinyl siloxane impression material into the simulated gingival sulcus.

Materials and Methods Three types of finish line (chamfer, deep chamfer, and radial shoulder) were impressed with two types of elastomeric impression material (polyether and polyvinyl siloxane) using a two-step impression technique. Ten samples of each finish line were prepared and then separated into two groups of impression material: polyether and polyvinyl siloxane. The model of the simulated gingival sulcus had a width of 0.1 mm and a depth of 3.5 mm with a subgingival finish line of 0.5 mm. The effect of the finish lines on the penetration ability of these impression materials was analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple comparison tests at a statistically significant level of 0.05.

Results A two-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference among finish lines, impression materials, and their interaction. The deep chamfer and radial shoulder finish lines displayed significantly higher penetration ability than the chamfer finish line. Moreover, polyether revealed significantly higher penetration ability than polyvinyl siloxane.

Conclusion The finish lines affected the penetration ability of the impression materials. Therefore, the simulated gingival sulcus model demonstrates that it is an effective way of examining impression materials' penetration abilities.

Keywords

dental - abutment - finish line - impression materials - penetration ability

Authors' Contribution

A.J., P.A., P.N. and N.A. contributed to conceptualization and methodology. Validation was done by N.A. A.J. contributed to formal analysis, investigation, data curation, and writing—original draft preparation. A.J. and P.A. contributed in resources collection. Writing—review and editing was done by A.J., P.A., P.N. and N.A. N.A. and P.N. visualized and supervised the study. N.A. helped in project administration. The final approval was done by A.J., P.A., P.N. and N.A. Accountability agreement was done by N.A.


Declaration of Patient Consent

There is no requirement of patient consent in this experimental research study.


Ethics Approval

This study did not require ethical approval because it is an experimental research study not involving living subjects.




Publication History

Article published online:
04 January 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Zitzmann NU, Hagmann E, Weiger R. What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe?. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (Suppl. 03) 20-33
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Al-Odinee NM, Al-Hamzi M, Al-Shami IZ, Madfa A, Al-Kholani AI, Al-Olofi YM. Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen. BMC Oral Health 2020; 20 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Malament KA, Socransky SS. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years. Part II: effect of thickness of Dicor material and design of tooth preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81 (06) 662-667
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Cagidiaco EF, Discepoli N, Goracci C, Carboncini F, Vigolo P, Ferrari M. Randomized clinical trial on single zirconia crowns with feather-edge vs chamfer finish lines: four-year results. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2019; 39 (06) 817-826
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 5 ed.. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016: 169-208
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Podhorsky A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Tooth preparation for full-coverage restorations-a literature review. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (05) 959-968
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Yu H, Chen YH, Cheng H, Sawase T. Finish-line designs for ceramic crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (01) 22-30.e5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Aimjirakul N. Prevalence of finishing line location of prepared teeth for cast posts and cores and types of previous restorations. J Dent Assoc Thai 2009; 59 (01) 22-29
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Son K, Lee KB. Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Int J Comput Dent 2021; 24 (01) 29-40
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Perakis N, Belser UC, Magne P. Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24 (02) 109-117
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Laufer B-Z, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76 (05) 466-471
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Langer Y, Cardash HS. The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24 (09) 629-635
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16 (04) 385-389
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Martinez JE, Combe EC, Pesun IJ. Rheological properties of vinyl polysiloxane impression pastes. Dent Mater 2001; 17 (06) 471-476
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 German MJ, Carrick TE, McCabe JF. Surface detail reproduction of elastomeric impression materials related to rheological properties. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (07) 951-956
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Menees TS, Radhakrishnan R, Ramp LC, Burgess JO, Lawson NC. Contact angle of unset elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (04) 536-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Eliades T, Zinelis S, Kim DG, Brantley W. Structure/property relationships in orthodontic polymers. In: Eliades T, Brantley WA. eds. Orthodontic Applications of Biomaterials. New York: Woodhead Publishing; 2017: 39-59
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 12 ed.. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012: 151-181
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4823:2021 dentistry – elastomeric imprssion and bite registration materials. 2021
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Nakamura K, Harada A, Inagaki R. et al. Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73 (08) 602-608
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Subasi G, Ozturk N, Inan O, Bozogullari N. Evaluation of marginal fit of two all-ceramic copings with two finish lines. Eur J Dent 2012; 6 (02) 163-168
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Faruqi S, Ganji KK, Bandela V. et al. Digital assessment of marginal accuracy in ceramic crowns fabricated with different marginal finish line configurations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022; 34 (05) 789-795
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99 (04) 274-281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials. 13 ed.. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2012: 277-325
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Aimjirakul N, Maneepairoj W, Srisettanil S. Effect of impression techniques on the penetration ability of addition silicones. SWU Dent J 2013; 6 (02) 24-34
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Guler U, Budak Y, Ruh E, Ocal Y, Canay S, Akyön Y. Effect of mixing techniques on bacterial attachment and disinfection time of polyether impression material. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (Suppl. 01) S054-S059
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Punhagui MF. et al. Influence of chloramine-T disinfection on elastomeric impression stability. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (02) 232-236
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Chai J, Pang IC. A study of the “thixotropic” property of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7 (02) 155-158
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 McCabe JF, Carrick TE. Rheological properties of elastomers during setting. J Dent Res 1989; 68 (08) 1218-1222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 McCabe JF, Arikawa H. Rheological properties of elastomeric impression materials before and during setting. J Dent Res 1998; 77 (11) 1874-1880
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental Materials: Foundations and Applications. 11 ed.. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2015: 98-117
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Theocharidou A, Tzimas K, Tolidis K, Tortopidis D. Evaluation of elastomeric impression materials' hydrophilicity: an in vitro study. Acta Stomatol Croat 2021; 55 (03) 256-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Nassar U, Tavoossi F, Pan YW, Milavong-Viravongsa N, Heo G, Nychka JA. Comparison of the contact angle of water on set elastomeric impression materials. J Can Dent Assoc 2018; 84 (i6): i6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Takahashi H, Finger WJ. Dentin surface reproduction with hydrophilic and hydrophobic impression materials. Dent Mater 1991; 7 (03) 197-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Johnson GH, Lepe X, Aw TC. The effect of surface moisture on detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90 (04) 354-364
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Aimjirakul N. Effect of a retarder in the flow characterisrics of polyether. SWU Dent J 2015; 8 (02) 11-18
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Lawson NC, Cakir D, Ramp L, Burgess JO. Flow profile of regular and fast-setting elastomeric impression materials using a shark fin testing device. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23 (03) 171-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Apinsathanon P, Bhattarai BP, Suphangul S, Wongsirichat N, Aimjirakul N. Penetration and tensile strength of various impression materials of vinylsiloxanether, polyether, and polyvinylsiloxane impression materials. Eur J Dent 2022; 16 (02) 339-345
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Suwanwalaikorn P, Ekworapoj P, Aimjirakul N. Penetration ability of various elastomeric impression materials using a gingival sulcus model. JCST 2021; 11 (03) 424-431
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Aimjirakul N. inventor; Srinakharinwirot University, assignee. Gingival simulated sulcus model. Thailand: 2020
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar