scholarly journals Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruna Sinjari ◽  
Gianmaria D’Addazio ◽  
Edit Xhajanka ◽  
Sergio Caputi ◽  
Giuseppe Varvara ◽  
...  

Adhesive restorations have been shown to guarantee excellent performance and longevity, although this comes with some disadvantages. Among these, the vulnerability of dentine to different agents has been widely evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible penetration of impression materials into freshly cut dentine. Dentine from 27 teeth was impressed with polyether (Impregum Penta L) (nine teeth) and with polyvinyl siloxane (Aquasil Ultra LV) (nine teeth). The surface of nine teeth after the impressions were used as the control. Specifically, the extroflections caused by the imprinting of the dentinal tubules on the impression material, the so-called impression tags, were measured. Furthermore, the presence of the material inside the tubules was examined. Scanning electron microscopy analysis showed material tags for all of the experimental groups. The mean lengths (±SD) were 22.6 (±11.0) µm for polyether, 21.8 (±12.8) µm for polyvinyl siloxane and 11.3 (±7.0) µm for the tooth control, with mean diameters (±SD) of 2.8 (±0.5), 2.4 (±0.7) and 3.1 (±0.7) µm, respectively. Fractal analysis showed fractal dimensions of 1.78 (±0.03), 1.77 (±0.03) and 1.71 (±0.03), respectively. These data demonstrated that the impression materials can remain inside the dentinal tubules, which can adversely affect the adhesive procedures.

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-291
Author(s):  
Rafael Manfro ◽  
Gislaine Felipe Garcia ◽  
Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi ◽  
Vinicius Fabris ◽  
Atais Bacchi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 403-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Machado ◽  
Daniel Comparin ◽  
Eduardo Donato Eing Engelke Back ◽  
Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia ◽  
Luiz Rômulo Alberton

ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Ni-Ti, M-Wire, and CM-Wire instruments. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two mandibular incisors were randomly divided into six groups according to the system used: WaveOne (WO), Reciproc (RP), Unicone (UC), ProTaper Next (PN), Mtwo (MT), and HyFlex (HF). Afterward, the specimens were cleaved in the mesiodistal and buccolingual direction for analysis by scanning electron microscopy. Results: Considering both directions and root canal thirds, there was no difference between HF, MT, and PN. RP, UC, and WO presented a significant difference between the directions, and the cervical third showed a significantly smaller quantity of residual smear layer compared with the apical third. When the systems were compared among them, there was a significant difference only between RP and WO. Conclusions: Residual smear layer observed after instrumentation with the different systems was similar, except for quantities between the reciprocating systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document