Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene (한국치위생학회지)

Korean Society of Dental Hygiene (한국치위생학회)
권호 표지

Effect of latex gloves on polymerization inhibition of addition silicone impression materials

라텍스 글러브가 시판되는 3종류 부가중합형 실리콘 인상재의 중합에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Soo-Hwa (Dept. of Dental Hygiene, Hanyang Women's College)
  • 김수화 (한양여자대학 치위생과)
  • Received : 2009.06.18
  • Accepted : 2009.09.20
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigated the polymerization inhibition effect of latex gloves on addition silicone impression material. Three different kinds of addition silicone impression materials and a natural latex gloves were used in this study. The results were as follows. 1. Compared to the control group, all of those three kinds of impression materials took longer curing time in order of unwashed, alcohol and washed group, on the other hand, degloving group had shorter curing time than control group(p<0.05). 2. By the type of impression materials, there was no significant difference observed between Exafine and Twinz in ungloved group, Exafine and Imprint II in unwashed group, and Exafine and Twinz in degloving group(p>0.05). 3. The degree of polymerization at 6 minutes after mixing impression materials was evaluated by dividing its range into score 1 to 5. All of the impression materials got score 5 in control group and degloving group, which implies perfect polymerization. In unwashed group, most of them appeared to be score 2 while score 3 were most frequently observed in alcohol group and score 4 in washed group. Thus each group showed differences in the degree of polymerization(p<0.05).

Keywords

References

  1. Craig RG, Urquiola NJ, Liu CC. Comparison of commercial elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 1990;15(3):94-104.
  2. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(5):728-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90192-D
  3. Anusavice KJ. Phillips'science of dental materials. 11th ed. St Louis: Saunders;2003:205-230.
  4. Kahn RL, Donovan TE, Chee WW. Interaction of gloves and rubber dam with a poly(vinyl siloxane) impression material: a screening test. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2(4):342-346.
  5. Chee WW, Donovan TE, Kahn RL. Indirect inhibition of polymerization of a polyvinyl siloxane impression material: a case report. Quintessence Int 1991;22(2):133-135.
  6. Kahn RL, Donovan TE. A pilot study of polymerization inhibition of poly(vinyl siloxane) materials by latex gloves. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2(2):128-130.
  7. American Dental Association. Council on scientific affairs and on dental practice. Infection control recommendation for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(5):672-680.
  8. Takla CS, Cunningham SJ, Horrocks EN, Wilson M. The effectiveness of an elastomeric module dispenser in cross-infection control. J Clin Orthod 1998;32(12):721-726.
  9. Reitz CD, Clark NP. The setting of vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116(3):371-375.
  10. Rosen M, Touyz LZ, Becker PJ. The effect of latex gloves on setting time of vinyl polysiloxane putty impression material. Br Dent J 1989;166(10):374-375. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4806847
  11. Baumann MA. The influence of dental gloves on the setting of impression materials. Br Dent J 1995;179(4):130-135. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808854
  12. Matis BA, Valadez D, Valadez E. The effect of the use of dental gloves on mixing vinyl polysiloxane putties. J Prosthod 1997;6(3):189-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1997.tb00089.x
  13. Causton BE, Burke FJ, Wilson NH. Implications of the presence of dithiocarbamate in latex gloves. Dent Mater 1993;9(3):209-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90122-7
  14. Cook WD, Thomasz F. Rubber gloves and addition silicone materials. Current note no. 64. Aust Dent J 1986;31(2):140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1986.tb02577.x
  15. Peregrina A, Land MF, Feil P, Price C. Effect of two types of latex gloves and surfactants on polymerization inhibition of three polyvinylsiloxane impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(3):289-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00420-7
  16. Korniewicz DM, Garzon L, Seltzer J, Feinleib M. Failure rates in nonlatex surgical gloves. Am J Infect Control 2004;32(5):268-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2003.12.005
  17. Murray CA, Burke FJ, MaHugh S. An assessment of the incidence of punctures in latex and non-lax dental exam ination gloves in routine clinical practice. Br Dent J 2001;190(7):377-380. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800978a
  18. Hollaus PH, Lax F, Janakiev D, Wurinig PN, Pridun NS. Glove perforation rate in open lung surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;15(4):461-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(99)00055-X
  19. Wong PS, Wright JE, White PA. Perforation of gloves. BMJ 1992;304(6837):1311.
  20. Occupational safety and health administration. 29 CFR part 1910. 1030. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: Final rule. Fed Regist 1991;56(235):64004-182.
  21. Kimoto K, Tanaka K, Toyoda M, Ochiai KT. Indirect latex glove contamination and its inhibitory effect on vinyl polysiloxane polymerization. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(5):433-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.02.015
  22. Reitz CD, Clark NP. The setting of vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116(3):371-375.
  23. Brwoning GC, Bromme JC Jr, Murchison DF. Removal of latex glove contaminants prior to taking poly (vinysiloxane) impressions. Quintessence Int 1994;25(11):787-790.
  24. Touyz LZ, Rosen M. The effect of maize starch on setting time of vinyl polysiloxane putty impression materials. J Dent Assoc S Afr 1989;44(9):377-379.