International Journal of Dentistry (Jan 2023)

Effect of Gingival Hemostatic Agents on the Surface Detail Reproduction and Dimension Stability of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials

  • Sirichan Chiaraputt,
  • Nattida Chokwattanapornchai,
  • Katanyoo Limchaikul,
  • Vibul Paisarnkobrit,
  • Tool Sriamporn

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6660721
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2023

Abstract

Read online

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of aluminum chloride based hemostatic agents on the surface detail reproduction and dimension stability. Three impression materials were investigated after contaminated with three commercial astringents with different concentration of aluminum chloride. The specimens from three impression materials were fabricated with a stainless-steel mold that followed the American Dental Association specification no.19. The mold was preliminarily contaminated with three hemostatic agents racestyptine, Dryz, and Expasyl™—and 80 specimens from each impression material—polyvinylsiloxane (PVS), polyether, and polyvinylsiloxane ether (PVSE), were fabricated and subjected to each astringent. The surface detail reproduction was examined using a stereomicroscope at 4x magnification, and the dimensional stability was analyzed at 24 hr with a measuring microscope. The surface detail data were statistically analyzed with Fisher’s test at a significance level of 0.05. The dimensional stability data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at a significance level of 0.05. Aluminum chloride hemostatic agents can affect the surface detail reproduction of impression materials differently (p<0.05). Thus, the first null hypothesis was rejected. PVS showed the highest percentage of satisfactory surface detail regardless of the hemostatic agent used in this study. PVSE showed a reduced percentage of satisfactory surface detail when the concentration of aluminum chloride was high. The three hemostatic agents affected the dimensional stability of each material differently (p<0.05). Therefore, the second null hypothesis was also rejected.