Xu D, Wei D H, Zhang Y C, DI P, Lin Y
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Dec 18;52(6):1112-1116. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.06.021.
To assess the effect of disinfectant (Cavicide) with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients disinfectant on dental impression accuracy.
The effect of Cavicide on three impression materials (alginate, polyether and vinylpolysiloxane) were assessed using a standard model. The standard model was digitized by an extraoral scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric). For each kind of impression materials, thirty impressions were taken following the manufactures' instruction in the same conditions. Subsequently, the impressions were randomly divided into three groups, with ten impressions in each group. After the impression taking was completed, the three groups underwent pure water rinse for 1 min (blank control, BC), 2% glutaraldehyde solution immersion disinfection for 30 min (glutaraldehyde, GD), and Cavicide solution spray disinfection for 5 min (Cavicide, CC), respectively. All the impressions were digitized by the extraoral scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric) after disinfection and exported to a dedicated three-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Qualify 2014, Geomagic, USA). In the software, the digital models of the impressions were trimmed to teeth and then superimposed with the digitized standard model via best-fit alignment. Root mean square (RMS) was used to evaluate the deviations between the impression and the standard model. The deviation in the anterior and posterior regions was evaluated respectively. One-way ANOVA test and the LSD post-hoc test were used to compare the deviations between the three groups ( < 0.05). The color map of each superimposition was saved for visual analysis.
For the polyether and vinylpolysiloxane materials, the difference between the three groups was not statistically significant (=0.933, =0.827). For the alginate material, the difference in posterior region between group GD and group BC, as well as group GD and group CC were statistically significant (GD . BC, =0.001; GD . CC, =0.002), while the difference between group BC and group CC was not statistically significant (=0.854). The visual analysis showed an obvious deviation in the buccal-lingual direction in group GD.
Disinfectant (Cavicide) with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients using spray disinfection has no effect on the accuracy of the alginate, polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions.
评估以苄索氯铵和异丙醇为主要活性成分的消毒剂(Cavicide)对牙印模精度的影响。
使用标准模型评估Cavicide对三种印模材料(藻酸盐、聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷)的影响。标准模型由口外扫描仪(IScan D103i,Imetric)进行数字化处理。对于每种印模材料,按照制造商的说明在相同条件下制取30个印模。随后,将印模随机分为三组,每组10个印模。印模制取完成后,三组分别进行1分钟的纯水冲洗(空白对照,BC)、30分钟的2%戊二醛溶液浸泡消毒(戊二醛,GD)和5分钟的Cavicide溶液喷雾消毒(Cavicide,CC)。所有印模在消毒后均由口外扫描仪(IScan D103i,Imetric)进行数字化处理,并导出至专用的三维分析软件(Geomagic Qualify 2014,Geomagic,美国)。在该软件中,将印模的数字模型修整至牙齿,然后通过最佳拟合对齐与数字化的标准模型进行叠加。采用均方根(RMS)评估印模与标准模型之间的偏差。分别评估前后区域的偏差。采用单因素方差分析和LSD事后检验比较三组之间的偏差(<0.05)。保存每次叠加的彩色图用于视觉分析。
对于聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷材料,三组之间的差异无统计学意义(=0.933,=0.827)。对于藻酸盐材料,GD组与BC组以及GD组与CC组在后部区域的差异有统计学意义(GD.BC,=0.001;GD.CC,=0.002),而BC组与CC组之间的差异无统计学意义(=0.854)。视觉分析显示GD组在颊舌方向存在明显偏差。
以苄索氯铵和异丙醇为主要活性成分的消毒剂(Cavicide)采用喷雾消毒对藻酸盐、聚醚和乙烯基聚硅氧烷印模的精度无影响。