Dnnng i .

Diton, DMD, MA*

Assistant Professor

The Effect of Custom

Tray Material Type and
Surface Treatment on
the Tensile Bond Strength
of an Impression
Material/Adhesive System

Larry C. Breeding, DMD, MSEd'

Associate Professor
Mary I, Bosser, DDS'"
Amir I, Nafso. DDS****
Ceneral Practice Resident

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the tensile

bond strength of one type of impression material adhesive to
three different custom tray materials: one autopolymerizing
(Fastray) and two light-polymerizing (Triad and Extoral). The
effect of different surface treatments was evaluated for each
of the materials. No significant difference in impression
material adhesive mean tensile bond strengths was exhibited
for any of the materials as the result of variations in the
surface treatment. It was observed that the Triad tray material
groups, with different surface treatments, exhibited
significantly higher impression material adhesive mean
tensile bond strengths than the autopolymerizing tray resin
and the Extoral light-polymerizing material. Intj Prosthodont
1993:6:303-306.

revious investigators have evaluated the bond

P strengths
of several impression materials to

cording to manufacturers, provide immediate dimensional stability upon completion of polymerization. The purpose of this investigation was to
evaluate the tensile bond strength of one impression material/adhesive system to two types of lightpolymerizing custom tray materials and compare
them to an autopolymerizing control group. Another variable considered in this investigation was
tray material surface treatment.

custom and stock trays.' Because of health concerns regarding monomer inhalation, other types
of custom tray materials are receiving more attention. In an effort to evaluate characteristics of an
alternative tray material, Hogans and Agar- completed an investigation concerning elastomer tray
adhesive bond strengths to thermoplastic and
acrylic resin materials. However, investigations involving light-polymerizing materials in connection
with impression material adhesion have not been
published. Tbe t h e r m o p l a s t i c and lightpolymerizing materials avoid the risk of monomer
inhalation; offer ease of tray fabrication; and, ac-

Materials and Methods

Perforated acrylic resin specimen holders

(Orthodontic Resin, L.D. Caulk Co Div, Dentsply,
Milford, DE] were fabricated for the tray materials
(Figi) using a mold. Each tray material holder had a
flaf square surface that measured 3.81 cm on each
side. A T-nut was incorporated in the holder so that
'Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry,
an eye-bolt could be threaded into it for attachment
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. during tensile testing. The holders designated to
"Department of Oral Health Practice, College of Dentistry,
retain the impression material were similar in deUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
sign, except small triangles of resin, 2 mm in thick'"Lkewood. Colorado.
ness, were for med on all four corners of the surtace
""Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
to insure an even thickness of impression material
Reprint requests: Dr Donna L. Dixon, Department of Restorative for testing (Eig 2]. Eighteen specimens were fabriDentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama al Birming- cated using an autopolymerizing resin (Eastray,
ham, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.

6. Number3,1593

303

Journai of Pros 1 hod on lies

Custom Tray Material Type and Surface Treatment

Fig 1 Tray materiai specimen holder with Fastray material

attached.

Fig 2

Henry Bosworfh Co, Skokie, IL). This material was

mixed according to manufacfurer's insfructions
and rolled to a uniform thickness of 3 mm on a
Rollet Unit (Kerr Mtg, Romulus, Ml) coated with
petroleum jelly. The perforations in the holder
were filled with the resin, the holder was pressed
onto the surface of the rolled resin, and the material was trimmed to the size of the holder using a
sharp scalpel. After the resin had polymerized, the
surfaces of nine specimens were cleaned with soap
and water for 15 seconds, dried with a clean paper
fowel, and allowed to set at room temperature for
24 hours before testing.
The other nine Fastray specimens were cleaned
with 90% isopropyl alcohol for 15 seconds prior to
cleaning with soap and water and drying as described above. Next, two light-polymerizing materials (Triad, Dentsply, York, PA, and Extoral,
Pro-Den Systems, Portland, OR) were used to fabricate 36 additional specimens (18 of each type).
These were attached to the holders by first filling
the perforations and then placing the holder onto
the sheet of material and removing the excess. Air
Barrier Coating (Dentsply) was applied to all of the
Triad specimens and nine of the Fxtoral specimens.
The 36 Triad and Fxtoral specimens were placed
in a Triad light-polymerizing unit (Model 2000,
Dentsply) for 5 minutes.
After polymerization, the 18 Extoral specimens
were cleaned with 90% isopropyl alcohol for 15
seconds followed by a 15-second cleaning with
soap and water. Nine of fhe polymerized Triad
specimens were cleaned with only soap and water
for 15 seconds; and nine were cleaned for 15 seconds using isopropyl alcohol, followed by another
15-second soap and water cleaning. All specimens
were dried with a paper towel and allowed to set at
room temperature for24 hours before testing.
One coat of the adhesive (Caulk Tray Adhesive,
L.D. Caulk Corp Div) was applied to each tray speci-

men and to each vinyl(poly siloxane) impression

material (Reprosil Heavy Body Impression Material,
L.D. Caulk Corp Div) holder. After the adhesive had
dried for 10 minutes at room temperature, equal
lengths of the impression material base and catalyst
were hand mixed with a spatula for 1 minute and
applied to the specimen holder. The tray material
and mixed impression material were placed in even
contact with each other and allowed to set under a
constant 6-kg load for 10 minufes. Impression material that had been expressed beyond the sides of
the approximated specimen holders was removed
using a sharp scalpel blade. A summary of specimen group treatments is presented in Table 1. Fach
specimen was placed in a testing machine (Instron
Universal, Instron Corp, Canton, MA) (Fig3). Using
a500-kg load cell with a crosshead speed of 0.5 cm/
min, a tensile force was applied, and fhe force
necessary to separate the impression materiai side
from the tray materiai side of each specimen was
recorded. Following compilation of dafa, appropriate statistical analyses were conducted.

Tiie Internationa

i of Prosthodontii

Impression material specimen holder

Results

Adhesive failure was observed to occur both at

the impression material adhesive/tray maferial interface and at the adhesive/impression material
interface in all of the specimens studied (Fig 4). The
calculated adhesive tensile bond strengths for the
tray material groups tested are displayed in Table 2.
Both kg/cm- and Ib/in- values are listed in this table
to allow comparison of the results from fhis investigafion to the results from previously published
studies involving autopolymerizing tray resins,'The
data in Table 2 were then compared using a one-way
analysis of variance (P < .05). A significant diffeTence was shown to exist among the groups (Table
3). To determine between which groups the differences existed, a Scheffe F test was completed

304

CStorr Tray Malerial Type and Surface Treatment

Fig 3 Specimen placed in the Instron machine for fensiie

testing.

Table 1
Material
Triad
Triad
Extorai
El to ral

Fig 4

Mode ct failure observed tcr all specimens

Summary o( Experirrental Conditions

Polymerization
conditions

Cleaning
methods

Storage time betre

adhesive addition (h]

Adhesive
drying time (mm)

Air Barrier Coating

applied
Air Barrier Coating
applied
No Air Barner Coating

t5 s alcohol
15 s soap'water
t 5 s soap'water

24

10

24

10

15 s alcohol
15 s soap.'water
15 s alcchol
15 s soap.'water
15 s soap/water
15 s alcohol
15 s soap/water

24

10

24

10

24
24

10
10

Pa stray
Pa Stray

Air Barrier Coating

applied
Wifh petroleum jelly
With petroleum jelly

Table 2

Calculated Data for Tray Material Groups Measured in kg/cm=

Mean

SD

SEM

CV

5.11 (72.71)
4.35(61.89)
3.16(44.99)
3.05 (43.43)
2.36 (33.58)
2.16(30.66)

0.30 (4.26)
0.76 (10,36)
0.70 (9.99)
0.35 (4.9B)
1.18(16.75)
0.58 (8.30)

0.10(1.42)
0.25 (3.62)
0.23 (3.33)
013(1.66)
0 39(5.99)
0 19(2.77)

5.86 (5,86)
17.54(17 55]
22 20 (22.20)
11 54(11.46)
49.91 (49,89)
27.12(27,08)

Group
Triad (aicotiol]
Triad (no alcohoi]
Extoral (no air barner)
Exforal (air barrier)
Fastray (aicohoi]
Fa stray (no alcohoi]

Table 3

Analysis of Variance Comparison of the Tensile Bond Strengths lor the Tray

Material Groups

Model
Error
Correlation total

Sum of
squares

Mean
square

59.70
24,15
83.85

11.94
0.50

A significant difference exists at P < ,05

: 6, Number 3,1993

305

The International lournal of Prosthodontics

Custom Tray Material Type and Surface Treatment

(Table 4). Results from this test indicated that both

Triad groups (with and without alcohol) exhibited
significantly higher impression material adhesive
mean tensile bond strengths than the other tray
material groups (5.11 kg/cm- and 4.35 kg/cm-, respectively], and these values were found to be
similar. The impression material adhesive mean
tensile bond strengths of the Extoral specimen
groups were shown to be similar to the mean tensile bond strengths of the Fastray groups.

Table 4 Scheffe F Test for Tray Material Groups

Triad (alcohol)
Triad (no aloohoi)
Extorai (no air barrier)
rxtorai (air barrier)
=astray (alcohol)
=astray (no alcohol)

9
9
9
9
9
9

5.11
4.35
3.t6
3.05
2.36
2.16

Vertical lines opn groups thai are not significantly difterenl at P < .05.

sion copings that may be divergent. Isolated bond

failure of the impression material to the tray is
difficult to detect. Such bond failure may result in
inaccurate casts and, therefore, inaccurate prostheses. The use of an impression material adhesive/
tray material system that exhibits a high tensile
bond strength is indicated under the intraoral conditions mentioned above to minimize the occurrence of such inaccuracies.

Discussion
The light-polymerizing tray material, under the
conditions of this investigation, exhibited higher
impression material adhesive mean tensile bond
strengths than the autopolymerizing groups. The
Extoral material manufacturer does not recommend the use of Air Barrier Coating during light
polymerization, although the removal of the airinhibited unpolymerized surface layer using isopropyl alcohol is recommended.
The Extoral specimens on which the Air Barrier
Coating was used exhibited a nonsignificant decrease in bond strength compared to the specimens cleaned with isopropyl alcohol. Therefore,
theadditionai procedureof applying the Air Barrier
Coating to the Extoral material is unnecessary. The
Extoral material, with and without the Air Barrier
Coating, exhibited tensile bond strengths that were
significantly lower than those of the Triad groups
on which the coating was used during light polymerization. The use of an alcohol surface cleaning
treatment did not significantly improve the bond
strength with the Triad material. The addition of an
alcohol cleaning procedure during the preparation
of the Fastray specimens resulted in a nonsignificant increase in the adhesive tensile bond strength.
When using a custom tray and a stiff impression
material such as vinyKpoly siioxane), the force necessary to remove the impression from the oral cavity can be greatly increased by the presence of; (1)
large undercuts around pontics in existing prostheses; (2) long clinical crowns with open gingival
interproximal spaces; or (3) dental implant impres-

Tile Internationai lournai of Prosthodontics

Mean (kg/om^

Group

Conclusion
The results from this investigation suggest the
following conclusions:
1. The Triad tray material groups exhibited significantly greater impression material adhesive
mean tensile bond strengths than the Extoral
and Fastray groups.
2. The use of an alcohol surface-cleaning treatment resulted in a nonsignificant increase in the
impression material adhesive mean tensile bond
strength for both the Triad and Fastray resins.
3. The use of Air Barrier Coating with the Extorai
resin resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in the
impression material adhesive mean tensile bond
strength.
References
1. Chai JY, Jameson LM, Moser |B, IHesby RA. Adhesive properties of several impression material systems: Part I. | Prosthet
DenM991;6S:201-20'i.
2. Hogans WR, Agar |R. The bond strength of elastomer tray
adhesives to Ihermoplastic and acrylic resin Iray materials. |
Proslhet Dent 1992 ; 67:541-.3.

306