Comparative Evaluation of Ozone Water and Glutaraldehyde on Surface Detail Reproduction of Vinyl Polyether Silicone Impression Materials at Different Time Intervals
ABSTRACT Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. Methodology: VPES impressions were categorized into lig...
Saved in:
| Published in | Journal of pharmacy & bioallied science Vol. 16; no. Suppl 4; pp. S3837 - S3839 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
India
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
01.12.2024
Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| Edition | 2 |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 0976-4879 0975-7406 0975-7406 |
| DOI | 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1318_24 |
Cover
| Abstract | ABSTRACT
Objective:
The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals.
Methodology:
VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction.
Results:
Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES.
Conclusion:
Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | ABSTRACT Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. Methodology: VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction. Results: Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Conclusion: Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). Keywords: Dental impressions, disinfection, glutaraldehyde, heavy-body VPES, light-body VPES, ozone water, surface detail reproduction, vinyl polyether silicone The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals.ObjectiveThe study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals.VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction.MethodologyVPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction.Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES.ResultsOzone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES.Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes).ConclusionOzone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). ABSTRACT Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. Methodology: VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction. Results: Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Conclusion: Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). ABSTRACTObjective:The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals.Methodology:VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction.Results:Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES.Conclusion:Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction. Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction. Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impression material at different time intervals. Methodology: VPES impressions were categorized into light-body and heavy-body groups and further divided based on the disinfectant used (ozone water or glutaraldehyde) and the time interval of disinfection (T1: 15 minutes and T2: 24 hours). A total of 80 impressions (40 light-body and 40 heavy-body) were prepared and subjected to the respective disinfection protocols. The SDR was evaluated using a standard scoring system to determine the quality of detail reproduction. Results: Ozone water demonstrated superior performance in preserving surface detail compared to glutaraldehyde at both T1 and T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Light-body VPES showed better SDR scores compared to heavy-body VPES across all conditions. Specifically, for light-body VPES, the mean SDR scores at T1 were significantly better for ozone water compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.00 vs. 1.27, P = 0.046). For heavy-body VPES, ozone water also performed better at T1 compared to glutaraldehyde (mean scores: 1.27 vs. 1.67, P = 0.034). Disinfection at T1 resulted in better SDR scores compared to T2 for both light-body VPES and heavy-body VPES. Conclusion: Ozone water is a more effective disinfectant than glutaraldehyde for preserving the surface detail of VPES impressions, especially when disinfection is conducted for a shorter duration (15 minutes). |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Shankar, Kriti Dandekeri, Savita Shetty, Sanath Kumar Ragher, Mallikarjuna Fernandes, Kevin Shetty, Rajesh |
| AuthorAffiliation | Department of Prosthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: Department of Prosthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Kriti surname: Shankar fullname: Shankar, Kriti email: kritishankar.0296@gmail.com – sequence: 2 givenname: Savita surname: Dandekeri fullname: Dandekeri, Savita – sequence: 3 givenname: Rajesh surname: Shetty fullname: Shetty, Rajesh – sequence: 4 givenname: Kevin surname: Fernandes fullname: Fernandes, Kevin – sequence: 5 givenname: Sanath Kumar surname: Shetty fullname: Shetty, Sanath Kumar – sequence: 6 givenname: Mallikarjuna surname: Ragher fullname: Ragher, Mallikarjuna |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39926876$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqNk91u0zAUgCM0xMbYA3CDLHHDTYf_EttXaOrGqDQ0xAZcWk7ibO4cOzjJqvI8PCin7To2BBKJFFv2dz7b5zjPs50Qg82ylwQfcoLZ23lX9oerjyaMSE35k2wPK5FPBMfFzrpfTLgUajc76Ps5hocpqgh7lu0ypWghRbGX_ZzGtjPJDO7WopNb40foxoBig85_wILomxlsQibU6NSPA5C-ttfL2iKALsbUmMqiYzsY59Fn26VYj9VW8NWFpUefol_a4RokF867auWctV2yfb_CPq70zvgemQEdu6axyYYBXboWsABzsKX-Rfa0gcYe3LX72Zf3J5fTD5Oz89PZ9OhsUuU4HyYlprksGiqU4GVTVExWFeEFVRQrUpe1oJSUohSFIgXNcyFLSpSQQsoc1xUv2X4223jraOa6S641aamjcXo9ENOVNmlwlbeaSMJJg5lgpOalLRU1nIMMl4SynEtw0Y1rDJ1ZLoz390KC9aqCel28hxWEoHeboG4sW1tXkApI-KOdPJ4J7lpfxVtNiMQ5pQUY3twZUvw-2n7Qresr670JNo69ZqTIsaSCCEBf_4HO45gCJBgorhihqsC_qSsDx3ahibBwtZLqI0khCYRgBdThXyh4a9uua944GH8U8OrhSe-PuL2ZAJANUKXY98k2_5W-k03MInq4Ov2NHxc2afDfhLj4d6C-YJIJvf0V2C_AkxHE |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.008 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_143_16 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90160-C 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90109-P |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. COPYRIGHT 2024 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd. 2024. This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences 2024 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences – notice: Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. – notice: COPYRIGHT 2024 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd. – notice: 2024. This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences 2024 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION NPM K9. NAPCQ 7X8 5PM ADTOC UNPAY DOA |
| DOI | 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1318_24 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef PubMed ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Premium MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Unpaywall for CDI: Periodical Content Unpaywall DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Nursing & Allied Health Premium MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) PubMed |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology |
| EISSN | 0975-7406 |
| Edition | 2 |
| EndPage | S3839 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_18141f03731d4beb92a449780b123548 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1318_24 PMC11805226 A821411109 39926876 10_4103_jpbs_jpbs_1318_24 JPBS-16-S3837 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 5VS 7RV 7X7 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8G5 AAFWJ ABDBF ABJNI ABUWG ACGFS ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ AFKRA AFPKN ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS AZQEC BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BHPHI BPHCQ CCPQU DIK DWQXO E3Z EBD EOJEC ESX F5P FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_DOAJ GUQSH GX1 H13 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IHR IL9 INH INR IPNFZ ITC KQ8 LK8 M2O M48 M7P MK0 ML0 M~E NAPCQ O5R O5S OBODZ OK1 OVD P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PMFND PQQKQ PROAC RIG RMW RNS RPM TEORI TR2 TUS UKHRP W3E AAYXX ADJBI CITATION NPM K9. 7X8 5PM ADTOC PPXIY PQGLB PUEGO UNPAY |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-b02586f27974bf6c38cc146292091dbd7221b7b7691625578b2197878850dc4b3 |
| IEDL.DBID | M48 |
| ISSN | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:31:28 EDT 2025 Mon Sep 15 08:22:18 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:38:22 EDT 2025 Fri Sep 05 14:01:55 EDT 2025 Fri Sep 19 20:53:22 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 21:59:35 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 21:03:58 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:01:35 EDT 2025 Wed Oct 01 03:10:03 EDT 2025 Wed May 28 23:11:50 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | Suppl 4 |
| Keywords | ozone water light-body VPES vinyl polyether silicone disinfection heavy-body VPES Dental impressions glutaraldehyde surface detail reproduction |
| Language | English |
| License | Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. cc-by-nc-sa |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c505t-b02586f27974bf6c38cc146292091dbd7221b7b7691625578b2197878850dc4b3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1318_24 |
| PMID | 39926876 |
| PQID | 3149312960 |
| PQPubID | 226472 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_18141f03731d4beb92a449780b123548 unpaywall_primary_10_4103_jpbs_jpbs_1318_24 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11805226 proquest_miscellaneous_3165082717 proquest_journals_3149312960 gale_infotracmisc_A821411109 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A821411109 pubmed_primary_39926876 crossref_primary_10_4103_jpbs_jpbs_1318_24 wolterskluwer_medknow_10_4103_jpbs_jpbs_1318_24_S3837_Comparat |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 20241200 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-12-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 12 year: 2024 text: 20241200 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | India |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: India – name: Mumbai |
| PublicationTitle | Journal of pharmacy & bioallied science |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | J Pharm Bioallied Sci |
| PublicationYear | 2024 |
| Publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow – name: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd – name: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd – name: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| References | Pratten (R4-20250114) 1990; 63 Rueggeberg (R3-20250114) 1992; 67 Amin (R2-20250114) 2009; 1 Savabi (R6-20250114) 2018; 9 Azarpazhooh (R5-20250114) 2008; 36 A (R1-20250114) 2013; 5 |
| References_xml | – volume: 1 start-page: 81 year: 2009 ident: R2-20250114 article-title: The effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of impression materials and gypsum casts publication-title: J Clin Med Res – volume: 36 start-page: 104 year: 2008 ident: R5-20250114 article-title: The application of ozone in dentistry: A systematic review of literature publication-title: J Dent doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.008 – volume: 9 start-page: 37 year: 2018 ident: R6-20250114 article-title: Prevention of cross-contamination risk by disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials with ozonated water publication-title: Int J Prev Med doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_143_16 – volume: 67 start-page: 628 year: 1992 ident: R3-20250114 article-title: Sodium hypochlorite disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90160-C – volume: 63 start-page: 223 year: 1990 ident: R4-20250114 article-title: Effect of disinfectant solutions on the wettability of elastomeric impression materials publication-title: J Prosthet Dent doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90109-P – volume: 5 start-page: 102 year: 2013 ident: R1-20250114 article-title: Role of ozone therapy in minimal intervention dentistry and endodontics - A review publication-title: J Int Oral Health |
| SSID | ssj0000392913 |
| Score | 2.3247027 |
| Snippet | ABSTRACT
Objective:
The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction... The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of vinyl polyether... ABSTRACT Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction... ABSTRACTObjective:The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR)... Objective: The study aims to evaluate the impact of chemical disinfection using ozone water and glutaraldehyde on the surface detail reproduction (SDR) of... |
| SourceID | doaj unpaywall pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref wolterskluwer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | S3837 |
| SubjectTerms | Air pollution Comparative analysis Crosslinked polymers dental impressions Disinfectants Disinfection Disinfection & disinfectants Environmental aspects Glutaraldehyde heavy-body vpes Infection control Light light-body vpes Original Research Ozone ozone water Reproduction Silicones surface detail reproduction vinyl polyether silicone |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1bi9QwFA6yLwoi3q2ucgRZQXfcNk0v8yKse3ER1IHZ1X0LTZqyo2M7zHRY6u_xh3pO0ulMFdEHX4YyTUPb8-WcL-k5Xxh7poJCmDAWgzRCMwijcUgpHFe50krzLOKxslm-H-KTM_HuPDrf2OqLcsKcPLB7cXsYgURQ-GESBrlQRg15JmhXNF9RlaewZb4YxjYmU9YHU9h3eyNjvB0gKx-6T5oi8MO9LzO1eEU_MkBISy56Qclq9__uoTdC1K_pk1eX5SxrLrMpHl-_rOgz9-KrzXLfiFXHN9mNlmTCvnu4W-yKKW-znZFTqW524XRddLXYhR0YrfWrmzvsx8FaERyOOjVwqAr4-L0qDXxGfjqHrMzhLeI2o0Utc9HkBrDReDkvMm3g0KamAvJ7JynbdvBpUjZTGFXTxhYaw3gyRShin7S44SRC4D11T8MCshoO2w1caqBiFbALmHhLi7vs7Pjo9OBk0G7mMNBIsuqBQnKVxgVPcAKjiliHqdbopWmzrGGQqzzhPFCJSmLkqzjNSVKFvhS9SZpGfq6FCu-xrRLv5wGDPOOhImY7FLHA3lIEl1JBbKLAJDpJPfZiZU05c5odEuc6ZHpprb5peo-9IXt3DUlu2_6BIJQtCOXfQOix54QWSU4BIaGztrYB75fkteR-yrEDEnf12HavJQ5m3T-9wptsnclChjiLDZGXxb7Hnnan6UpKkCtNtaQ2RLU5Ts49dt_Bs3sk0h6OMep5LO0Bt_fM_TPl5MJKjZNAIDF0j73sMP4v7_R1bxTIb660889XyDGtlMgVvh_-D6M8Ytc4MlCXe7TNtur50jxGBlmrJ9ZZ_ATDSG7T priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: Medknow Open Access Journals dbid: W3E link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1bb9MwFLZgPICEEHcCAx0kNCRYRmI7l74gjV2YkIBK3WBvVuw4WreSVG2qKfwefijnJGnacJGQeKmq2jlx6u8cf3Z8PjP2QvuZtCKUbhxgN0hr0KU0-lWqjTY8CXio612-n8KjE_nhNDhtxaIpF2bt_b30PfHmfKrnO_ShfESf4vIqu8YjnClT8ohYLad4NM43hyHjAOsiDR807zD_bKU3CtVi_b-H5LUx6df9ktcX-TSpLpMJfr95WdB77flFva19bXA6vM1utawSdhsY3GFXbH6XbQ0bWepqG45XWVbzbdiC4UqwurrHfuytJMDhoJP_hiKDz9-L3MJXJKQzSPIU3iNQE1rFsmdVagErjRazLDEW9uu9qICEvtGQbQ18GefVBIbFpKozi2E0niD20CatZjSaIPCRzJMfQFLCfntiSwmUnQL1iiU2aX6fnRweHO8due3pDa5BVlW6GtlUHGY8whmLzkIjYmMwLNPpWAM_1WnEua8jHYVIUHFeE8UagyeGjzgOvNRILR6wjRzb84hBmnChicoOZCjRWoxo0toPbeDbyESxw14te1NNG5EOhZMb6npV9_p61zvsHfV3V5H0tesfEHaqdVeFvEf6mSci4adSWz3giaSz-DxNucUS7_iS0KIoCiAkTNImM2B7SU9L7cYcDZCaq8M2ezXRe02_eIk31UaPuRI4bRVIxELPYc-7YrqSdsTltlhQHeLW6AqRwx428OweicSGQxzmHBb3gNt75n5JPj6rtcVJEZAoucNedxj_l__0bc8L1Lcml_PvV6gRLY2oJb4f_6-BJ-wGR7rZbDTaZBvlbGGfIl0s9bM6UPwEVK5rIQ priority: 102 providerName: Wolters Kluwer Health |
| Title | Comparative Evaluation of Ozone Water and Glutaraldehyde on Surface Detail Reproduction of Vinyl Polyether Silicone Impression Materials at Different Time Intervals |
| URI | https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1318_24 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39926876 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3149312960 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3165082717 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC11805226 https://doaj.org/article/18141f03731d4beb92a449780b123548 |
| UnpaywallVersion | publishedVersion |
| Volume | 16 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAFT databaseName: Open Access Digital Library customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: KQ8 dateStart: 20100101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://grweb.coalliance.org/oadl/oadl.html providerName: Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries – providerCode: PRVAFT databaseName: Open Access Digital Library customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: KQ8 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://grweb.coalliance.org/oadl/oadl.html providerName: Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20100101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVEBS databaseName: EBSCOhost Academic Search Ultimate customDbUrl: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?authtype=ip,shib&custid=s3936755&profile=ehost&defaultdb=asn eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: ABDBF dateStart: 20100401 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?db=asn providerName: EBSCOhost – providerCode: PRVBFR databaseName: Free Medical Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: DIK dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://www.freemedicaljournals.com providerName: Flying Publisher – providerCode: PRVFQY databaseName: GFMER Free Medical Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: GX1 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_journals/Free_medical.php providerName: Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVAQN databaseName: PubMed Central customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: RPM dateStart: 20100101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ providerName: National Library of Medicine – providerCode: PRVFZP databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 20250731 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: M48 dateStart: 20100101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://journals.scholarsportal.info providerName: Scholars Portal – providerCode: PRVEMX databaseName: Medknow Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 0975-7406 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: true ssIdentifier: ssj0000392913 issn: 0976-4879 databaseCode: W3E dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://www.medknow.com/journals.asp providerName: Wolters Kluwer Health |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bb9MwFLbGeABpQlxHYEwHCQ0J1pI4bpK-gMbWMSENKnVle7Nix9kKJSm9aITfww_lHCe9BIaEeImqxnGc-Dv2Z-ec7zD2THmpMH4gGlELu0EYjSal0K4SpZXmcYsHynr5fgiO-uL9Wetsjc3TW1UvcHLl0o7ySfXHw-b3b8UbNHjkr03huf6rzyM1adJBeohQycU1dh0nJk4gP67Yvh2YiQuUCZNxEm4gVW-X3zmvrqU2U1lB_z-H7ZV563efyhuzbBQXl_EQf29c5vTte_LFur6vTGCHt9mtinnCXgmVO2zNZHfZTreUri524WQZiTXZhR3oLkWti3vs5_5SJhw6C4lwyFP4-CPPDJwiaR1DnCXwDsEc006XuSgSA1ioNxunsTZwYP1VAUl_qTNbVfBpkBVD6ObDwkYfQ28wRHxinbTjUeqGwDFVT7YC8RQOqqwuU6AIFrC7mtikyX3WP-yc7B81qgwPDY3Ma9pQyLiiIOUhrmpUGmg_0hqHbsqg1fYSlYSceypUYYAkFtc-YaRwgMUhJopabqKF8h-w9Qzb85BBEnNfEd1ti0BgbREiTikvMC3PhDqMHPZi3ptyVAp5SFwAUddL2-urXe-wt9Tfi4KkwW3_yMfnsjJpidxIeKnrh76XCGVUm8eC8vW5iuKPBd7xOaFFEnYREjquAh6wvaS5JfcijhWQ4qvDtmol0cJ1_fQcb3JuINLHpa2PGA9chz1dnKYryWsuM_mMyhD_5rhid9hmCc_FI5EgcYBTocOiGnBrz1w_kw0urP44qQYSbXfYywXG_-Wdvq5Zgfxaxnv-_QrZo-0TOcf3o_9v6WN2kyMZLd2Qttj6dDwzT5BMTtW23YTZtgMFHk_9zi-J73q2 |
| linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative+Evaluation+of+Ozone+Water+and+Glutaraldehyde+on+Surface+Detail+Reproduction+of+Vinyl+Polyether+Silicone+Impression+Materials+at+Different+Time+Intervals&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+pharmacy+%26+bioallied+science&rft.au=Shankar%2C+Kriti&rft.au=Dandekeri%2C+Savita&rft.au=Shetty%2C+Rajesh&rft.au=Fernandes%2C+Kevin&rft.date=2024-12-01&rft.pub=Wolters+Kluwer+-+Medknow&rft.issn=0976-4879&rft.eissn=0975-7406&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=Suppl+4&rft.spage=S3837&rft.epage=S3839&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103%2Fjpbs.jpbs_1318_24&rft.externalDocID=PMC11805226 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0976-4879&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0976-4879&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0976-4879&client=summon |