Shanghai Journal of Stomatology ›› 2023, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 251-254.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2023.03.006

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effect of different kinds of gingival retraction agents on the polymerization inhibition of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials

HOU Qian-qian, GE huan, GAO Yi-ming   

  1. Department of Stomatology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology. Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2022-09-05 Revised:2022-11-17 Online:2023-06-25 Published:2023-06-28

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different kinds of gingival retraction agents after directly contacted with polyvinyl siloxane impression materials on polymerization inhibition and the inhibition degree. METHODS: Five kinds of gingival retraction agents (0.1% epinephrine hydrochloride, 0.05% oxymetazoline, 15.5% ferric sulfate, 25% aluminum chloride and 5% aluminum chloride) were chosen, normal saline was as control group, and two kinds of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials (ExpressTM, ImprintTM Ⅱ) were combined into 12 groups. There were 12 specimens in each group and 144 specimens in total. Silicone rubber impression materials were mixed by the same operator using a dispensing gun into the acrylic mold, so that they could directly contact the gingival retraction agents on the densely woven cotton fabrics. The samples were removed when the polymerization time arrived according to the manufactures’ recommendations and then placed under a stereomicroscope with a magnification of 10 times to observe whether polymerization inhibition occurred, the degree of inhibition was compared afterwards. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The polymerization inhibition of two kinds of silicone rubber impression materials occurred in 15.5% ferric sulfate group and 25% aluminum chloride group, and the inhibition occurrence rate was 100%, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05) compared with normal saline group. Inhibition was not found in 0.1% epinephrine hydrochloride group, 0.05% oxymetazoline group and 5% aluminum chloride. The effect of 15.5% ferric sulfate and 25% aluminum chloride on polymerization inhibition degree of ImprintTM Ⅱ was greater than ExpressTM, and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When silicone rubber impression material is used during impression procedure, attention should be paid to the effect of the gingival retraction agent containing 15.5% ferric sulfate and 25% aluminum chloride on its polymerization. The gingival retraction agent should be washed before impression to avoid the residue directly contacting the silicone rubber to prevent polymerization.

Key words: Gingival retraction agents, Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials, Polymerization inhibition

CLC Number: