Influence of surface hardener on gypsum abrasion resistance and water sorption.
BACKGROUND
Abrasion is a major concern when gypsum products are used for dies, leading to the frequent recommendation that surface hardeners should be used before waxing or scanning.


OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated abrasion resistance and water sorption with 4 commonly used gypsum die materials with and without the application of surface die hardeners.


METHODS
Three ADA Type IV (Vel-Mix, ResinRock, and Silky-Rock) and 1 Type V die material (Die-Keen) were evaluated for abrasion resistance after application of 2 surface hardeners (Permabond 910 cyanoacrylate and Clear Coat). Thirty specimens of each material were fabricated using an impression of a standard brass die machined with 1-mm high ridges, sloped 45 degrees. Gypsum materials were mixed according to manufacturers' recommendations and allowed to set 1 hour before separating. All replicated dies were allowed to bench set for 14 days before testing. One hour before testing, specimens were arbitrarily assigned to 1 of 3 treatment subgroups (n=10/group): no treatment (control), coated with Permabond 910, or coated with Clear Coat. In the coated groups, die hardener was painted over the grooves and air dried. Abrasion resistance (measured by weight loss) was evaluated using a reciprocal abrasion device in which a stylus applied a 50-g mass perpendicular to the ridges. Mass loss was determined using an analytical balance before and after each test cycle. Five sets of 20 unidirectional passes were made on each specimen. A scanning electron microscope was used to evaluate the surface of specimens in each treatment subgroup. Water sorption was also evaluated using 2 Type IV (Silky-Rock, ResinRock) and 1 Type III (Microstone) gypsum materials. Specimen dies were separated 1 hour after pouring the impression and allowed to bench set 1 week before testing. Five specimens from each material group received a coating of a surface hardener 1 hour before testing. Specimens were placed in distilled water for 15 minutes and differences in mass were determined using an analytical balance before and after each test. A 2-way analysis of variance was completed followed by a Tukey post hoc test (alpha=.05).


RESULTS
The 2-way analysis of variance revealed an interaction between product and surface coating (P=.0459). Given this interaction, the 12 combinations determined by surface treatment and material type were considered individually using the Tukey method. Vel-Mix, control (2.62 +/- 2.64 mg) had the most material loss and Vel-Mix, Clear Coat (0.48 +/- 0.29 mg) had the least material loss. Water sorption results indicated an interaction between the gypsum material and the surface treatment (P<.0001). The control groups of Microstone (299.2 +/- 49.6 mg) and Silky-Rock (159.0 +/- 8.5 mg) showed the most water sorption compared with the other treatment groups.


CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that a significant improvement in abrasion resistance occurred only with specific gypsum/surface hardener material combinations. Also, water sorption decreased significantly for Microstone and Silky-Rock gypsum materials when a surface hardener was used.
Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA. terry-lindquist@uiowa.edu
Terry J
TJ
Lindquist
Clark M
CM
Stanford
Eric
E
Knox
D000042:Absorption; D000327:Adsorption; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002133:Calcium Sulfate / Q000737:chemistry*; D003487:Cyanoacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D003734:Dental Casting Investment / Q000737:chemistry*; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D006244:Hardness; D006801:Humans; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry
D003487:Cyanoacrylates; D003734:Dental Casting Investment; D003764:Dental Materials; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D014867:Water; C084545:Permabond 910; D002133:Calcium Sulfate