|
Table 1: Main studies on dimensional changes after disinfecting impression materials. |
||
|
Author/year |
Type |
Conclusion |
|
AlZain et al., 2020 |
Meta- analysis |
Distortion and loss of impression surface detail should be avoided as they can adversely affect the fitting accuracy of the restorations. Therefore, better designed and standardized studies are needed to evaluate the effect of different commonly used disinfectants on properties of impression materials |
|
Ulgey et al., 2020 |
In vitro |
Immersion of alginate impressions in an ammonium-based disinfectant for 15 minutes can provide favorable results with minimal distortion compared to those disinfected for 30 minutes |
|
Asopa et al., 2020 |
In vitro |
There are dimensional changes within the recommended ranges for addition silicone impressions after autoclaving. Therefore, this impression material may be acceptable clinically for fabricating fixed dental prostheses (FPD). It is recommended pouring impressions after 24 hours to take advantage of the rebound phenomenon showed by this material |
|
Nimonkar et al., 2019 |
In vitro |
There are significant dimensional changes in polyvinylsiloxane samples disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde and 1% sodium hypochlorite for 20 minutes. The impressions disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite showed greater discrepancy when compared 2% glutaraldehyde disinfected group |
|
Azevedo et al., 2019 |
In vitro |
Results indicate high antimicrobial efficiency without significant changes in three-dimensional shape of the addition silicone impressions. Hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite are easily accessible disinfectant solutions in dental environment. Additionally, hydrogen peroxide could be a valuable alternative for silicone impressions disinfection |
|
AlZain et al., 2019 |
In vitro |
There were statistically significant differences in wettability between addition, condensation and polyether silicone impressions. Improvements in wettability of 0.5% glutaraldehyde disinfected impression material surfaces were observed as measurement time increased |
|
Ismail et al., 2017 |
In vitro |
In complete edentulous, they evaluated the dimensional precision in impressions of alginate and ZOE paste, disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite, 2% glutaraldehyde, 1% sodium hypochlorite. They found that ZOE paste impressions disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde for 10 or 60 minutes did not affect dimensional stability, while for alginate impressions the immersion should only be 10 minutes so as not to affect the dimensional accuracy |
|
Chidamb- ranathan et al., 2017 |
Literature review |
Sterilization method is the most expensive, time consuming, and affects the dimensional stability of dental materials. Disinfection with chemical solutions is an alternative method for disinfecting hydrocolloid and silicone impression materials. Iodine is a recommended disinfectant for all types of impression materials |
|
Demajo et al., 2016 |
In vitro |
Glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants are effective in eliminating all microbial forms for both alginate and silicone impressions without modifying the dimensional stability, and alginate harbors three times more microorganisms than silicone |
|
Nassar et al., 2015 |
In vitro |
There is minimal effect on detail reproduction within the acceptable limit of ANSI/ADA specification No. 19 during disinfection by immersion with 2.5% glutaraldehyde and prolonged storage of up to 2 weeks. Furthermore, A-silicone undergoes fewer dimensional changes than condensation silicone |
|
Pal et al., 2014 |
In vitro |
There is a 100% reduction of microorganisms as a result of immersing the impressions in 2% glutaraldehyde and 1% and 4% NaOCl, without deteriorating the surface details when type IV stone plaster models were obtained. An important finding was that the impressions disinfected with 1% NaOCl had better quality in terms of surface details reproduction |
|
Ahila et al., 2012 |
In vitro |
There are trends for differences in dimensional stability and surface quality after 10 and 30 minutes and 1 hour for polyvinyl siloxane impressions, using glutaraldehyde 2.45%, povidone iodine 5% and sodium hypochlorite 4%, but they are not significant. The longer the exposure time to the disinfectant, the greater the change. Glutaraldehyde produced more accurate details than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite |
|
Rentzia et al., 2011 |
In vitro |
A significant increase in surface roughness was observed with increasing immersion time for the «rough» surface. Complete elimination of viable Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells from alginate discs was obtained after 30 and 120 s immersion in Cidex OPA(®) and NaOCl, respectively |
|
Bustos et al., 2010 |
In vitro |
Immersion for 5 minutes can successfully disinfect both materials and reducing the immersion time can also minimize changes in physical properties such as dimensional stability and surface integrity |
|
Amin et al., 2009 |
In vitro |
Disinfectants such as 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1% sodium hypochlorite, 2% glutaraldehyde for 5 minutes and 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 10 minutes, used in alginate and addition silicone impressions, gave as a result that these latter disinfected with all said products gave gypsum models with dimensions very similar to those of the standard matrix. Of all the disinfectants used, 0.5% sodium hypochlorite showed minimal dimensional changes in all of the impression materials |
|
Melilli et al., 2008 |
In vitro |
Immersion disinfection procedures using two solutions (glutaraldehyde and quaternary ammonium) are not clinically relevant in dimensional stability of polyether and addition silicone |