Raval Zalak, Vaishnav Kalpesh, Sanghani Twinkle, Thakar Shaiva, Patel Ruchi, Joshi Ravi, Makwana Sanidhya, Yohannan Jinsa A
Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Gandhinagar, IND.
Dental Assistant, Marcelino Dental Arts, Little Silver, USA.
Cureus. 2024 Aug 27;16(8):e67944. doi: 10.7759/cureus.67944. eCollection 2024 Aug.
The implant-supported prosthetic treatment strategy is commonly chosen in modern dentistry to address tooth loss caused by a variety of conditions or dental defects. To achieve healthy and natural-looking results in implant dentistry, it is essential to replicate the peri-implant soft tissue. The gingival tissue that surrounds implants is quite accurately replicated by gingival masks. They facilitate more accurate prosthesis restoration design, enhance periodontal health, and promote oral cleanliness. Furthermore, gingival masks allow for the accurate observation of superstructure seating on implant analogs, which is essential for creating superstructures that fit perfectly.
To evaluate the change in tear strength and tensile strength of three different gingival mask materials (esthetic mask auto mix, Gi-Mask and Gingifast Rigid) available in the market at various time intervals.
Total of 540 specimens were fabricated with 180 samples of each group. Changes in tensile strength and tear strength of three different gingival mask materials (esthetic mask auto mix, Gi-Mask and Gingifast Rigid) at intervals of one day, three days, and seven days were measured by a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA and Tukey Post Hoc test. We also performed correlation and regression analyses on tear and tensile strength.
The null hypothesis, which is supported by these data, claims that there is no discernible variation in the tear strength and tensile strength of three distinct materials across various time intervals. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that there was a significant change in the tear strength and tensile strength of these gingival mask materials at different time intervals. Esthetic mask auto mix has a high tear strength compared to Gi-Mask and gingifast rigid. Gi-Mask has the least tear strength among all three. Tensile strength decreases as time increases, but the Esthetic mask auto mix has high strength compared to Gi-Mask and gingifast rigid.
Selecting the right material for gingival masks is essential, taking into account the clinical scenario and the articulation time. Time influences gingival mask materials' tear strength and tensile strength, which impacts their performance and durability. Esthetic mask auto mix has a high tear and tensile strength compared to Gi-Mask and gingifast rigid.
在现代牙科中，种植体支持的修复治疗策略常用于解决由各种情况或牙齿缺陷导致的牙齿缺失问题。为了在种植牙科中获得健康且外观自然的效果，复制种植体周围软组织至关重要。牙龈膜能相当准确地复制围绕种植体的牙龈组织。它们有助于更精确的修复体修复设计，增强牙周健康，并促进口腔清洁。此外，牙龈膜能准确观察种植体代型上的上部结构就位情况，这对于制作完美贴合的上部结构至关重要。
评估市场上三种不同牙龈膜材料（美学膜自动混合材料、Gi - Mask和Gingifast Rigid）在不同时间间隔下撕裂强度和拉伸强度的变化。
共制作540个样本，每组180个样本。使用万能试验机测量三种不同牙龈膜材料（美学膜自动混合材料、Gi - Mask和Gingifast Rigid）在1天、3天和7天时间间隔下的拉伸强度和撕裂强度变化。采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行统计分析。我们还对撕裂强度和拉伸强度进行了相关性和回归分析。
这些数据支持的原假设称，三种不同材料在不同时间间隔下的撕裂强度和拉伸强度没有明显差异。因此，原假设被拒绝，得出结论：这些牙龈膜材料在不同时间间隔下的撕裂强度和拉伸强度有显著变化。与Gi - Mask和Gingifast Rigid相比，美学膜自动混合材料具有较高的撕裂强度。Gi - Mask在所有三种材料中撕裂强度最低。拉伸强度随时间增加而降低，但与Gi - Mask和Gingifast Rigid相比，美学膜自动混合材料强度较高。
考虑到临床情况和咬合时间，为牙龈膜选择合适的材料至关重要。时间会影响牙龈膜材料的撕裂强度和拉伸强度，进而影响其性能和耐用性。与Gi - Mask和Gingifast Rigid相比，美学膜自动混合材料具有较高的撕裂强度和拉伸强度。
