Gypsum compatibility of antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection.

B. B. King, B. K. Norling, Richard R Seals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: This investigation examined the gypsum compatibility of two antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection. Subjective compatibility evaluations were compared with objective quantitative profilometer readings of gypsum cast surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate, Jeltrate Plus, Antimicrobial Alginate, and their nonantimicrobial counterparts, Coe Alginate and Jeltrate Plus, were used in this study. After spray disinfection with water (control), Alcide LD, Biocide, OMC II, and 0.5% NaOCI, impressions of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 18 detail reproduction die and impressions made simultaneously of a smooth glass die were cast in Microstone, Silky-Rock, and Die-Keen. Five specimens were made for each alginate/disinfectant/gypsum combination for a total of 300 samples each for both the subjective and objective analyses. For the subjective analysis of gypsum compatibility, the specimens made from the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 test die were evaluated by using a 1-to-4 visual rating system at magnification x12. For the objective analysis, the arithmetic average surface roughness of each specimen made from the smooth glass die was recorded three times with a 200-mg skidless stylus instruments. RESULTS: The results of the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 testing for gypsum compatibility showed that 11 of 60 possible combinations did not pass the test. All impressions made with nonantimicrobial COE Alginate passed the test regardless of the disinfectant/gypsum combination. The results of the three-factor analysis of variance for the subjective and objective analyses showed significant interactions between alginates, disinfectants, and stones at the P < .05 level. To further delineate these differences, unpaired t tests (P < .05) within brands for each disinfectant/gypsum combination were performed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1% chlorhexidine diacetate to COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate has decreased its compatibility with the dental stones and disinfectants tested when compared with its nonantimicrobial counterpart. In terms of gypsum compatibility, the nonantimicrobial COE Alginate was compatible with all disinfectant and gypsum combinations tested. The addition of 1.70% didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride to Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Alginate has increased its compatibility with all the dental stones tested. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.7398) was found between visual gypsum compatibility evaluation scores and surface roughness of gypsum casts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)219-227
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
Volume3
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1994

Fingerprint

Alginates
Calcium Sulfate
Disinfection
Disinfectants
American Dental Association
Dental Disinfectants
Glass
Ammonium Chloride
Chlorhexidine
Statistical Factor Analysis
Reproduction
Reading

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Gypsum compatibility of antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection. / King, B. B.; Norling, B. K.; Seals, Richard R.

In: Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, Vol. 3, No. 4, 12.1994, p. 219-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{80a788f158c048448d151c13dba364e5,
title = "Gypsum compatibility of antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection.",
abstract = "PURPOSE: This investigation examined the gypsum compatibility of two antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection. Subjective compatibility evaluations were compared with objective quantitative profilometer readings of gypsum cast surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate, Jeltrate Plus, Antimicrobial Alginate, and their nonantimicrobial counterparts, Coe Alginate and Jeltrate Plus, were used in this study. After spray disinfection with water (control), Alcide LD, Biocide, OMC II, and 0.5{\%} NaOCI, impressions of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 18 detail reproduction die and impressions made simultaneously of a smooth glass die were cast in Microstone, Silky-Rock, and Die-Keen. Five specimens were made for each alginate/disinfectant/gypsum combination for a total of 300 samples each for both the subjective and objective analyses. For the subjective analysis of gypsum compatibility, the specimens made from the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 test die were evaluated by using a 1-to-4 visual rating system at magnification x12. For the objective analysis, the arithmetic average surface roughness of each specimen made from the smooth glass die was recorded three times with a 200-mg skidless stylus instruments. RESULTS: The results of the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 testing for gypsum compatibility showed that 11 of 60 possible combinations did not pass the test. All impressions made with nonantimicrobial COE Alginate passed the test regardless of the disinfectant/gypsum combination. The results of the three-factor analysis of variance for the subjective and objective analyses showed significant interactions between alginates, disinfectants, and stones at the P < .05 level. To further delineate these differences, unpaired t tests (P < .05) within brands for each disinfectant/gypsum combination were performed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1{\%} chlorhexidine diacetate to COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate has decreased its compatibility with the dental stones and disinfectants tested when compared with its nonantimicrobial counterpart. In terms of gypsum compatibility, the nonantimicrobial COE Alginate was compatible with all disinfectant and gypsum combinations tested. The addition of 1.70{\%} didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride to Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Alginate has increased its compatibility with all the dental stones tested. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.7398) was found between visual gypsum compatibility evaluation scores and surface roughness of gypsum casts.",
author = "King, {B. B.} and Norling, {B. K.} and Seals, {Richard R}",
year = "1994",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "219--227",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gypsum compatibility of antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection.

AU - King, B. B.

AU - Norling, B. K.

AU - Seals, Richard R

PY - 1994/12

Y1 - 1994/12

N2 - PURPOSE: This investigation examined the gypsum compatibility of two antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection. Subjective compatibility evaluations were compared with objective quantitative profilometer readings of gypsum cast surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate, Jeltrate Plus, Antimicrobial Alginate, and their nonantimicrobial counterparts, Coe Alginate and Jeltrate Plus, were used in this study. After spray disinfection with water (control), Alcide LD, Biocide, OMC II, and 0.5% NaOCI, impressions of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 18 detail reproduction die and impressions made simultaneously of a smooth glass die were cast in Microstone, Silky-Rock, and Die-Keen. Five specimens were made for each alginate/disinfectant/gypsum combination for a total of 300 samples each for both the subjective and objective analyses. For the subjective analysis of gypsum compatibility, the specimens made from the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 test die were evaluated by using a 1-to-4 visual rating system at magnification x12. For the objective analysis, the arithmetic average surface roughness of each specimen made from the smooth glass die was recorded three times with a 200-mg skidless stylus instruments. RESULTS: The results of the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 testing for gypsum compatibility showed that 11 of 60 possible combinations did not pass the test. All impressions made with nonantimicrobial COE Alginate passed the test regardless of the disinfectant/gypsum combination. The results of the three-factor analysis of variance for the subjective and objective analyses showed significant interactions between alginates, disinfectants, and stones at the P < .05 level. To further delineate these differences, unpaired t tests (P < .05) within brands for each disinfectant/gypsum combination were performed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1% chlorhexidine diacetate to COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate has decreased its compatibility with the dental stones and disinfectants tested when compared with its nonantimicrobial counterpart. In terms of gypsum compatibility, the nonantimicrobial COE Alginate was compatible with all disinfectant and gypsum combinations tested. The addition of 1.70% didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride to Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Alginate has increased its compatibility with all the dental stones tested. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.7398) was found between visual gypsum compatibility evaluation scores and surface roughness of gypsum casts.

AB - PURPOSE: This investigation examined the gypsum compatibility of two antimicrobial alginates after spray disinfection. Subjective compatibility evaluations were compared with objective quantitative profilometer readings of gypsum cast surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate, Jeltrate Plus, Antimicrobial Alginate, and their nonantimicrobial counterparts, Coe Alginate and Jeltrate Plus, were used in this study. After spray disinfection with water (control), Alcide LD, Biocide, OMC II, and 0.5% NaOCI, impressions of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 18 detail reproduction die and impressions made simultaneously of a smooth glass die were cast in Microstone, Silky-Rock, and Die-Keen. Five specimens were made for each alginate/disinfectant/gypsum combination for a total of 300 samples each for both the subjective and objective analyses. For the subjective analysis of gypsum compatibility, the specimens made from the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 test die were evaluated by using a 1-to-4 visual rating system at magnification x12. For the objective analysis, the arithmetic average surface roughness of each specimen made from the smooth glass die was recorded three times with a 200-mg skidless stylus instruments. RESULTS: The results of the ANSI/ADA specification no. 18 testing for gypsum compatibility showed that 11 of 60 possible combinations did not pass the test. All impressions made with nonantimicrobial COE Alginate passed the test regardless of the disinfectant/gypsum combination. The results of the three-factor analysis of variance for the subjective and objective analyses showed significant interactions between alginates, disinfectants, and stones at the P < .05 level. To further delineate these differences, unpaired t tests (P < .05) within brands for each disinfectant/gypsum combination were performed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1% chlorhexidine diacetate to COE Hydrophilic Gel Alginate has decreased its compatibility with the dental stones and disinfectants tested when compared with its nonantimicrobial counterpart. In terms of gypsum compatibility, the nonantimicrobial COE Alginate was compatible with all disinfectant and gypsum combinations tested. The addition of 1.70% didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride to Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Alginate has increased its compatibility with all the dental stones tested. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.7398) was found between visual gypsum compatibility evaluation scores and surface roughness of gypsum casts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028695165&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028695165&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7866505

AN - SCOPUS:0028695165

VL - 3

SP - 219

EP - 227

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 4

ER -