Effect of chemical disinfectant on the hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression material

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a chemical disinfectant on the hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials. Disc-shaped specimens (40 mm in diameter and 6 mm in thickness) of Silagum Light, Impregum™, Garant™, Duosoft™, and Identium® Light were prepared according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. Six specimens of each impression material were allocated to control and experimental groups. Specimens in the experimental group were sprayed with 0.5% UMONIUM38® disinfectant and allowed a contact time of 10 minutes. Surface wettability was evaluated by measuring the contact angle using a goniometer with the sessile drop method, and the measurements were recorded using a video camera. The advancing contact angle of a distilled water droplet on the impression surface was measured at 0 s (T0), 30 s (T30), 60 s (T60), and 120 s (T120) after droplet placement. For each specimen, three sessile drops were applied to three different surface areas and recorded. The data were analyzed using mixed design ANOVA (repeated measure ANOVA and two-way ANOVA), followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests, with the level of statistical significance set at α = 0.05. When comparing the disinfectant group (0.5% UMONIUM38®) to the control group, no significant differences in contact angles were observed for all materials at T30, T60, and T120. However, at the initial time point (T0), the disinfectant significantly increased the contact angle of Identium® compared to its control. For SilagumLight and Impregum™, no significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups at T0. Overall, Identium® exhibited the lowest contact angles (highest hydrophilicity) in both control and disinfected groups across all time intervals compared to the other materials. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that disinfection with 0.5% UMONIUM38® spray did not adversely affect the hydrophilicity of the tested VPS, PE, and VPES impression materials over time. The results demonstrate that this specific disinfectant is compatible with these elastomeric materials in terms of surface wettability, as the transient increase in contact angle observed for the VPES material was not clinically significant in the context of standard laboratory procedures. However, these findings are limited to the particular disinfectant tested; therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to other types of chemical disinfectants. Additionally, further investigation into dimensional stability and surface integrity is warranted to ensure overall clinical performance and long-term prosthetic success.