d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

The effect of disinfecting solutions on the dimensional

stability of dental alginate impression materials
Danish Muzaffar 1 , Michael Braden, Sandra Parker, Mangala P. Patel
Department of Oral Growth and Development, Dental Physical Sciences in Dentistry Unit, Queen Mary, University of London, Barts and
The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, London, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Objectives. Dimensional changes occur in set dental alginate impression materials when

Received 13 January 2011

immersed in disinfecting solutions. In this contribution the dimensional changes of two algi-

Received in revised form

nates in two disinfecting solutions, and for two specimen thicknesses, have been studied.

20 November 2011

The results were analyzed theoretically.

Accepted 13 March 2012

Methods. The dimensional changes of two commercial alginates (Blueprint Cremix and
Hydrogum), have been measured, in distilled water and two disinfecting solutions (Perform
ID/sodium hypochlorite), using a traveling microscope, at 5 min intervals over a period of 1 h.

Keywords:

Samples of simple geometry have been studied, namely rectangular strips with thicknesses

Cross contamination

of 1.5 and 3 mm, respectively.

Immersion disinfection

Results. In all cases, both alginates continuously shrank with time, in the three immersion

Alginates

liquids, over the hour of measurement, indicating transfer of water from the alginate into

Shrinkage

the external water or disinfecting solution. The t1/2 shrinkage plots were generally linear,

Expansion

but with an intercept on the t1/2 axis, indicating the possibility of an initial expansion at

Diffusion

very short times. In most cases, the ratios of slopes for both thicknesses were 1.331.54, in

Disinfectants

contrast to the theoretical value of 2. Perform ID however gave anomalous results for the
1.5 mm thick samples. At 10 min their shrinkage was 1.341.72%, compared with 0.42% to
0.67% in the other two media.
Signicance. The effects of thickness observed were not in accord with simple Fickian theory
because of the various ions diffusing into and out of the alginate. Moreover, the water content
of the alginate decreased consequent on the cross-linking process.
2012 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Disinfection of dental impression materials is necessary to

avoid cross contamination consequent on the presence of
micro-organisms embedded on/in the impression materials
from blood and saliva [1]. The actual micro-organisms found

have been reported, for example, by Jennings and Samaranayake [2], and Look et al. [3].
There are generally two disinfecting methods available,
namely the use of aerosols or immersion in disinfecting solutions [4]. Clearly, either method should not compromise the
dimensional stability of the impression material. With alginate impression materials, dimensional changes are known

Corresponding author at: Dental Physical Sciences (Oral Growth and Development), Francis Bancroft Building (2nd Floor), Queen Mary,
University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 020 7882 5982; fax: +44 020 7882 7089.
E-mail address: M.Patel@qmul.ac.uk (M.P. Patel).
1
Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi UniversityCollege, Malaysia.
0109-5641/$ see front matter 2012 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.03.013

750

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

to occur on immersion in water and articial saliva [5,6]. Often

the alginate initially swells, but then shrinks until ultimately
the process equilibrates with a net shrinkage. Other sources
suggest alginates swell continuously with time, on immersion
in water [1].
The situation is currently confused because there are a
number of alginates commercially available; although the general constituents will be similar, there are likely to be detailed
differences. Furthermore there are a number of disinfecting
solutions available. The various studies reported use different
alginates and disinfecting solutions, and differing test methods. Some of the studies are reported here.
Martin et al. [7] studied three disinfecting solutions, 5.25%
sodium hypochlorite, Perform ID and Sterilox, the latter both
as 10% and concentrated solutions, with a range of impression
materials, including one alginate. Changes in dimensions of
cylindrical samples (4 mm high) were measured at three time
intervals, namely after setting, after the manufactures guideline for immersion disinfection, and 24 h after immersion. In
the case of the alginate, some of the solutions exhibited an
initial expansion up to 10 min, and then subsequently contraction to give an overall net contraction.
Abour et al. [8] studied the dimensional stability of casts
made from an alginate impression material that had been
immersed in undiluted sodium hypochlorite, for 30 min;
untreated impressions were used as controls. Casts of the
impression materials were poured after 30 min, and stored for
24 h before being measured. The results of this study indicated
no signicant differences in the dimensional stability of the
casts between controls and disinfected samples.
Bergman et al. [9] investigated the effects of six
disinfectants (2% gluteraldehyde, 24% propanolol, 0.5%
chlorhexidine, 5.0% sodium salt of sulfanochloramide, 1.0%
benzalkonium chloride and a mixture of phenyl phenol and
0.5% chlorcresol), on four proprietary alginate impression
materials. Distilled water was used as the control. Six stainless
steel blocks, indented with three lines, were used to measure
dimensional stability and surface detail of the set alginate
materials. The results of this study showed signicant dimensional changes, but no signicant changes in surface detail.
Alginate impressions have also been immersed in
iodophor, phenol gluteraldehyde, and glyoxal gluteraldehyde
[10], and the effects on surface detail and dimensional changes
were examined. This study used a mandibular arch for the
master cast. The set impressions were rinsed in water for 10 s,
to simulate clinical practice, immersed in the disinfectant, as
stipulated by the manufacturers, and then poured to form
casts. Dimensional changes were followed by a measuring
microscope. It was concluded from the results that hydrocolloid materials showed no signicant changes in accuracy
compared with controls. However, disinfected samples were
smoother than the corresponding controls.
Peutzfeldt and Asmussen [11] investigated three types
of disinfectants with three commercial alginates. Deionized
water was used as a control. The immersion time for all
the samples was 1 h, after which they were stored in a
humid environment for 24 h, and then casts were made.
The results contra-indicated the use of immersion systems
containing 70% ethanol, due to the resultant excessive shrinkage, attributed to dehydration of the alginates. Otherwise no

signicant dimensional changes were observed with other

immersion systems, although it was noted that Blueprint
exhibited expansion.
In another study by Jones et al. [12], alginate impression materials showed clinically unacceptable dimensional
changes when impressions were immersed for more than
10 min in a 2% gluteraldehyde solution. It was also noted that
the disinfected impressions exhibited discoloration.
The above list of studies is not exhaustive, but gives an
indication of the differing results obtained with the various
methods used. It is noteworthy that no investigators seemed
to have monitored dimensional changes with time to get
dimensional change proles (Minagi et al. [13] is an exception).
Also no investigation has studied the effect of the dimensions
(e.g. thickness) of alginate specimens on their dimensional
changes during immersion in solutions.
Hence, the aims of this study were:
(1) To investigate the effects of two disinfecting solutions,
and distilled water as a control, on the dimensional stability of two commercial alginates made from samples of
two different thicknesses. The dimensional changes were
measured as a function of time, up to 1 h, to determine the
nature of dimensional change proles.
(2) To investigate the effect of specimen size (e.g. thickness)
by plotting the results (% linear shrinkages) against t1/2 to
establish the role of diffusion in the material/specimen.
(3) To analyze the data in terms of Fickian diffusion theory
and the Gibbs modication of this theory.

2.

Materials and methods

2.1.

Materials

The two commercial alginates studied were Blueprint Cremix

(Blueprint, Dentsply, USA) and Hydrogum (Ivoclar Vivadent,
Liechtenstein). The two disinfecting solutions were (1) Perform
ID (PID, Schulke and Mayr, Germany). This material consists
of a powder containing 20 g potassium peroxomonosulfate,
15 g sodium benzoate, 10 g tartaric acid. One scoop of powder was added to 1000 ml of water to form the disinfecting
solution. It is claimed by the manufacturer that impression
materials, including alginates, will be stable during the disinfecting period of 10 min; (2) sodium hypochlorite solution
(NaOCl, Milton Laboratories, Rivadis, France); 500 ml of this
reagent was added to 1000 ml water. Distilled water (DW) was
used as a control immersion medium.

2.2.

Methods

2.2.1.

Sample preparation

Modeling wax molds were used, with rectangular cavities

60 mm 10 mm, to make samples of two thicknesses, 1.5 and
3 mm, respectively, for the purpose of determining the effect
of thickness. Each alginate was mixed according to the manufacturers instructions (the water/alginate ratio for Hydrogum
was 15 ml/7 g, and 34 ml/14.7 g for Blueprint Cremix) and introduced into the mold, standing on a glass plate. Then another
glass plate was pressed on to the mold, squeezing out the

751

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

Fig. 1 Dimensional changes of Blurprint Cremix and

Hydrogum in 1% sodium hypochlorite 1.5 mm samples.

excess material. After setting (2 min for Hydrogum and 1 min

for Blueprint Cremix, as per manufacturers instructions), the
sample was removed from the mold and any ash carefully
cut away. Five samples per material, per test were used for all
procedures.

2.2.2.

Measuring dimensional changes

As soon as a given sample was set, it was placed in a atbottomed polytetrauoroethylene (PTFE) mold. The sample
was anchored on a xed pin at one end of the trough, and
a second pin was carefully inserted into the other end of the
sample, taking care not to penetrate the sample completely.
Then the sample was covered with the appropriate liquid
(30 ml).
Dimensional changes were measured with a traveling
microscope (Chesterman) to 0.001 cm, for each material in
DW and the two disinfecting solutions. First a reading was
obtained for the xed pin. Then the microscope was focussed
on the opposite edge of the sample, closest to the movable
pin, and the second reading was taken, to obtain a baseline
reading. The subsequent readings were taken every 5 min up
to 1 h, on the sample edge closest to the movable pin.
Initially the data were plotted as percentage linear shrinkage against time, followed by percentage linear shrinkage
against the square root of time (t1/2 min1/2 ); the latter was to
establish the role of diffusion in the samples.

2.3.

Fig. 2 Effect of thickness (1.5 and 3.0 mm) on dimensional

changes as a function of t1/2 Blueprint Cremix in distilled
water.

Table 1 Comparison between Blueprint Cremix and

Hydrogum (at 1 h).
Medium

1.5 mm

3.0 mm

Air
Distilled water
Sodium hypochlorite
Perform ID

NS
S1
S2
NS

NS
NS
NS
NS

S1 Blueprint > Hydrogum.

S2 Blueprint > Hydrogum.
NS no signicant difference; probability of the null hypothesis
>0.05.
S signicant difference; probability of the null hypothesis <0.01.

in DW, the 1.5 mm samples have an initial period where there

is expansion, followed by a reversal into a linear shrinkage.
Tables 1 and 2 show statistical analysis data, using the
Mann Whitney test, for a comparison between: Blueprint
Cremix and Hydrogum at 1 h, and sodium hypochlo-

Statistical analysis

The Mann Whitney test was used for a comparison between:

Blueprint Cremix and Hydrogum at 1 h, and sodium hypochlorite/Perform ID at 10 min (and 1 h), for the two thicknesses 1.5
and 3 mm.

3.

Results

Fig. 1 is an example of a linear shrinkage (%) versus time plot,

showing typical error bars, for the 1.5 mm samples immersed
in 1% NaOCl for the two alginates studied.
Figs. 26 plot percentage linear shrinkage (average of ve
samples) versus t1/2 for the two alginates immersed in the
three immersion media, respectively, each graph having plots
for the two thicknesses (1.5 and 3 mm). Plotting against t1/2
is to establish the role of diffusion in the shrinkage process.
Error bars have been omitted to emphasize the general character of the dimensional changes. Note with Fig. 3, Hydrogum

Fig. 3 Effect of thickness (1.5 and 3.0 mm) on dimensional

changes as a function of t1/2 Hydrogum in distilled water
(th = regression line for each thickness).

752

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

Fig. 4 Effect of thickness (1.5 and 3.0 mm) on dimensional

changes as a function of t1/2 Hydrogum in sodium
hypochlorite.

Fig. 5 Effect of thickness (1.5 and 3 mm) on dimensional

changes as a function of t1/2 Blueprint in sodium
hypochlorite.

Table 2 Comparison between sodium hypochlorite and

Perform ID at 10 min (and at 1 h in parentheses).
Material

1.5 mm

Blueprint
Hydrogum

NS (NS)
S2 (NS)

3 mm
S1 (S1 )
S3 (S3 )

NS no signicant difference; probability of the null hypothesis

>0.05.
S signicant difference; probability of the null hypothesis <0.01.
S1 Hypochlorite > Perform ID.
S2 Hypochlorite < Perform ID.
S3 Hypochlorite > Perform ID.

rite/Perform ID at 10 min (and 1 h), for the two thicknesses

1.5/3 mm. Table 3 summarizes the percentage linear shrinkages at 10 min (manufacturer recommended time for immersion disinfection), and 1 h (the period of measurement to
obtain the nature of the shrinkage proles), for the two

Fig. 6 Effect of thickness (1.5 and 3 mm) on dimensional

changes as a function of t1/2 Hydrogum in Perform ID.

Table 3 Percentage linear shrinkage values at 10 min (and 1 h in brackets).

Alginate

Thickness (mm)

Hydrogum

Na hypochlorite (%)

0.42 (0.2)
0.20 (0.7)
0.66 (2.0)
0.32 (1.3)
*

1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0

Blueprint

Distilled water (%)

Perform ID (%)

0.25 (1.6)
0.42 (1.3)
0.67 (2.4)
0.42 (1.7)

1.72 (3)
0.06 (0.5)
1.34 (2.3)
0.12 (0.6)

Signies expansion.

Table 4 Analysis of graphical data giving the slope, slope ratio and intercept on t1/2 axis, for the 1.5 and 3 mm alginate
samples (derived from % linear shrinkage versus t1/2 plots).
Figure

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Material

Blueprint (DW)
Hydrogum (DW)
Hydrogum (NaOCl)
Blueprint (NaOCl)
Hydrogum (PID)

Intercept on t1/2 axis (min1/2 )

Slope
1.5 mm

3.0 mm

Ratio, S

1.5 mm

0.33
0.14
0.20
0.40
0.50

0.23
0.10
0.15
0.26
0.10

1.44
1.40
1.33
1.54
5.00

0.90
6.40
1.70
1.21
0.00

3 mm
1.94
0.86
1.90
1.21
1.92

753

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

alginates (of two thicknesses) in the three media. Table 4 summarizes the slopes and intercepts of the data in Figs. 25, that
is the gures where there is a major linear region (Fig. 6, for
Hydrogum in Perform ID, has markedly different proles). The
following equation applies to these linear regions:
L
1/2
(%) = S(t1/2 t0 )
L

(1)

where L/L(%) = % shrinkage, S = slope of the linear region, and

t0 1/2 = intercept of line with the t1/2 axis.

4.

Discussion

Fig. 1, a typical example of the percentage shrinkage versus

time plot, shows evidence that Blueprint shrank more than
Hydrogum over the duration of the experiment (1 h). However,
the statistical analysis data in Table 1 indicates that there were
no signicant differences between the percentage shrinkages
of Hydrogum and Blueprint, except with the 1.5 mm samples immersed in distilled water and sodium hypochlorite, at
1 h. From the practical viewpoint, there are statistical differences between thicknesses in disinfecting solutions at 10 min
(Table 2), and the effect of thickness is much greater in Perform
ID for both materials (for example see Fig. 6). More important however are the differences between release proles (vide
infra).
The percentage linear shrinkage graphs against square root
of time, in Figs. 26, representing the three immersion media
and two sample thicknesses, generally gave linear plots, but
not always going through the origin. In the case of Hydrogum
in DW (Fig. 3), the 1.5 mm samples appeared to shrink less
than the 3 mm thick samples, the converse of what was seen
in all the other Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. This was due to the
1.5 mm samples initially expanding, and going through a maximum, before reverting to a linear contraction. Consequently,
the 1.5 mm samples have a higher shrinkage slope than the
3.0 mm samples, but actually lower shrinkage values (Table 3),
due to the samples initially expanding; shrinkage began after
t1/2 3 min1/2 , at a value of 0.5%. Such behavior has been
noted previously for some alginates, immersed in water, by
Nallamuthu [5,6]. It should be noted that the nature of the plots
is similar in all cases, i.e. there is a usually a transitory initial
portion, followed by a continuous steady shrinkage. Clearly
there are individual differences between the various systems.
The ratios of the shrinkage values of the 1.5 mm and 3 mm
samples, at t = 10 min (t1/2 = 3.20) (calculated from the data in
Table 3; for example 0.25/0.42 in NaOCl = 0.6), were 0.6 and
2.1 for Hydrogum, and 1.6 and 2.1 for Blueprint, in NaOCl
and DW, respectively. There were however marked differences
with both alginates in PID, with respect to (i) the shrinkage proles (see for example Fig. 6), and (ii) the ratios of the shrinkage
values of the two sample thicknesses, at t = 10 min (t1/2 = 3.20).
With the 1.5 mm samples the plot was curved concavely to the
t1/2 axis, suggesting there might have been an initial period of
expansion. Clearly, shrinkage of the 3 mm samples was very
much less. Most importantly, the shrinkages were very different at 10 min (Table 3), there being a factor of 29-fold
for Hydrogum, and 11.2 for Blueprint. This would seem to
be a distinct disadvantage of Perform ID, and also indicates

that a constituent of Perform ID was having a powerful effect,

possibly on the structure of the set alginate. The constituent
could possibly be potassium peroxomonosulfate, presumably
added to confer a low pH 3.5. Low pH values are known to have
an anti-viral effect [14].
From Figs. 26, the ratios of the two slopes were calculated
(Table 4) in order to see if simple diffusion theory applied to
these alginates immersed in the three media (it is assumed
that linear shrinkage is proportional to mass loss). The theory
below demonstrates that the ratio of the slopes of the two different thickness plots is theoretically 2. It is based on Fickian
diffusion theory [15]; the linear part of an uptake/desorption
(shrinkage) plot is given by:
Mt = 2M

 Dt 1/2
L2

(2)

where M is the equilibrium water uptake/loss, D the diffusion

coefcient, t the time, and 2L the thickness.
It was assumed the dimensional change plots will generally
follow this equation. The slope (S) of the Mt versus t1/2 plot,
from Eq. (2), can be written as:
S = 4M

 D 1/2  1 


2L

(3)

Hence, for simple diffusion theory:

S1.5
=2
S3.0

(4)

where S1.5 is the slope of the 1.5 mm samples and S3.0 the
slope of the 3 mm samples. Hence the ratio of the 1.5 mm samples slope is predicted to be twice that of the 3.0 mm samples.
However, in this contribution (Table 4), although the t1/2 plots
were generally linear in Figs. 26, the ratios of the slopes of
the two plots, for the two alginates immersed in NaOCl and
DW, were between 1.33 and 1.54 and 5 for Hydrogum in Perform ID, compared with the theoretical value of 2. Clearly in
most cases, simple Fickian Diffusion Theory cannot explain
the anomalous results seen in Figs. 26. Therefore further factors need to be taken into consideration, as highlighted below,
in order to attempt to explain the anomalous results obtained.
It is worth noting in this context, that Nallamuthu et al. [6]
studied alginate weight loss in air, which gave linear t1/2 plots,
but for the two thicknesses studied, the slope ratios were 1.2,
and again the thickness ratios were 2:1. Hence, the effects of
thickness on dimensional changes in air were similar in character to those studied here, in DW and disinfecting solutions.
This indicates that the relationship between linear shrinkage
and mass uptake is not a simple one.
One further factor that should be considered is the entropy
change consequent on cross-linking as the material sets. This
will reduce the equilibrium water content of the alginate, and
needs incorporation into the theoretical approach, as follows:
an extension of the Fickian diffusion theory is given by Gibbs
modication of the diffusion theory, which replaces Ficks Law
[16] by:
F=

c 
RT x

(5)

754

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

where  is the chemical potential, F is the ux and c, the concentration at point x, measured for example, from one of the
surfaces or the center plane; c will equal v1 , if concentration
is measured as the volume of diffusant (water) as a fraction
of the volume of the whole polymer system, v2 = 1 v1 = 1 c.
This has been studied by Muniandy and Thomas [17] to analyze the water uptake of hydrophobic elastomers containing
water soluble moieties.
The Flory Huggins Theory [18,19] is a possible model for the
current system, where:

(2 V1 v2 1/3 )
 = RT ln(1 v2 ) + v2 + v2 +
Mc


(6)

where  is the chemical potential, R is the universal gas constant, T is the temperature (K), v2 the volume fraction of
polymer (alginate), v1 the volume fraction of the liquid,  the
solvent parameter, V1 the molar volume of the solvent (water),
2 the density of the polymer, and Mc the molecular weight
between cross-links. In Eq. (6), considering the four terms
within the square brackets, terms 1, 2 and 4 give the entropy
for a given v2 value; the third term (containing ) gives the
corresponding enthalpy (H) value.
It must be stressed Eq. (6) is being used as a guide. It is not
known whether it is quantitatively valid for the alginate-water
system; furthermore the alginate formulations studied here
contain a considerable quantity of ller. Nevertheless it should
be a useful guide. If the nal term in Eq. (5) (i.e. [2 V1 v2 3 ]/Mc ) is
omitted, the equation is for the interaction between the polymer and liquid. In this case if  < 0.5,  is negative for all values
of v2 , and the polymer and liquid are miscible in all proportions (i.e. the polymer is soluble in the liquid). If the polymer
is cross-linked, it will swell until  = 0.
The case of the alginate impression material is interesting
in that on mixing the powder and water, the alginate dissolves
(partially) in water to give a paste, which then sets (cross-links)
later. When cross-linked, Eq. (6) applies, and it is suggested, 
becomes positive (i.e. the system now has more water than
is compatible, and it is expelled from the sample, resulting in
shrinkage). This process is diffusion controlled, but not necessarily governed by simple Fickian equations.
It is presumed in this work that the dimensional changes
observed for the two commercial alginate materials are consequent on weight changes; Nallamuthu et al. [6] have shown
this to be the case with water and articial saliva, who
demonstrated an initial expansion in water with some alginate materials, followed by shrinkage. They suggested that
on immersion of the alginate in water, there is some uptake
due to the presence of soluble ions in the set alginate matrix.
However on the entry of water, these ions diffuse out, thus
reversing the chemical potential, so that water then diffuses out with consequent shrinkage. In this contribution, the
shrinkage on immersion in water has been explained by the
fact that when the alginate sets (cross-links), this decreases
the entropy of mixing, resulting in the equilibrium concentration of water in the alginate decreasing, so that excess water
is expelled from the alginate, albeit diffusion controlled.
The implication for the current work is clear; standard
Fickian Theory does not necessarily apply, and explains why
simple Fickian prediction of thickness dependence of t1/2 is not
1

observed (i.e. experimental values of slope ratios are 1.331.54,

and not 2).
On comparing the results of the two alginates in sodium
hypochlorite (Figs. 4 and 5), both of these were similar to
Blueprint in water (Fig. 2), in terms of being linear with respect
to t1/2 and with an intercept on the t1/2 axis. But for Hydrogum,
the initial expansion observed in water, for the 1.5 mm thick
samples (Fig. 3), was not present in NaOCl (Fig. 4). This is
attributed to the effect of the osmolarity of the hypochlorite
solution counteracting the effect of ions in the alginate structure. With the other samples, both 1.5 and 3 mm, excluding
those in PID, the straight line had an intercept on the t1/2 axis.
This may reect a transient expansion followed by shrinkage,
and an intercept on the t1/2 axis, before the rst measurement.
In Fig. 6, it is clear that the behavior of Hydrogum in PID
was dramatically different from that of it in DW and NaOCl.
A similar result was observed with Blueprint in PID too. For
the 1.5 mm samples, the plot was initially curved, leading into
a possible linear region, whereas for the 3 mm samples the
plot was linear, with an intercept on t1/2 axis. The ratios of the
slopes (1.5 mm/3 mm) were 5 for Hydrogum (cf. 2.0 for simple Fickian theory). This raises the question as to why there
is a large difference in characteristics between the two disinfecting solutions. Their osmolarities is one possibility, because
it is known that water is attracted to solutions, the uptake
increasing with increasing osmolarity, and osmolarity would
be a further contribution to shrinkage. In the case of an electrolyte, the osmolarity of it is inuenced by the dissociation
of the basic molecule. NaOCl is an example: if the degree of
dissociation is ,
NaOCl Na+ + ClO
1

and the total number of moieties in solution is

(1 ) + + = 1 + , the factor by which the molarity must be
multiplied to give the osmolarity in this case.
The molarities of the disinfecting solutions are:
Hypochlorite: 0.044 moles per liter
Perform ID: 0.110 moles per liter
If both materials have the same value, then the Osmolarity of PID is 2.5 times that of NaOCl, and may account for
the difference in shrinkage behavior. Furthermore, the pH of
PID is 3.5 [20]; this implies the possibility of pH affecting the
structure of the alginate. Clearly this area merits further study
in particular measurement of the osmolarities of disinfecting
solutions.
Hence, generally all the alginate samples shrank continuously with time, in the three immersion media, over the 1 h
period, with no signs of leveling out. This emphasizes the need
to observe the manufacturers recommended time of immersion. The ndings in the current work are in marked contrast
to the statement of Anusavice [1] that alginates expand on
immersion in water, but generally agree with the work of
Nallamathu [5,6], who showed that alginates generally shrink
after an initial period of expansion on immersion in water.
The dependence of shrinkage rates on sample thickness could
have clinical implications. An impression of a dentate mouth
has an intricate structure with some parts of the impression

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 749755

being thinner than others. Such regions could shrink more

rapidly than adjoining thicker regions, indicating the possibility of distortion. This will depend on the ratios of slopes of
shrinkage t1/2 plots. Manufacturers guidelines for the time of
immersion disinfection should be adhered to.

5.

Conclusions

Immersion of the two alginates in DW and two disinfecting

solutions generally exhibited shrinkage, albeit sometimes
with an initial expansion.
The DW and NaOCl solution behaved similarly, exhibiting
linear t1/2 plots.
The behavior of both alginates in PID was more complex,
indicating a different mechanism for the interaction of the
disinfecting solution with the alginate.
The effect of thickness was less than that predicted by simple diffusion theory in the case of DW and NaOCl.
Shrinkage readings at 10 min showed much larger differences between 1.5 and 3 mm thickness for PID compared
with NaOCl and DW.
The data was analyzed theoretically using the Flory Huggins
Theory for the interaction of polymers with liquids.
It is suggested that the different behavior exhibited by PID
may be due to its higher osmolarity compared with NaOCl.
A further factor may be its low pH (3.5).

references

[1] Anusavice KJ. Phillips science of dental materials. 11th ed.

W.B. Saunders Company; 2003.
[2] Jennings KJ, Samaranayake LP. The persistence of
micro-organisms on impression materials following
disinfection. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:
3827.
[3] Look JO, Clay DJ, Gong K, Messer HH. Preliminary results
from disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. J
Prosthet Dent 1990;63:7017.
[4] Silva SMLM, Salvador MCG. Effect of the disinfection
technique on the dimensional stability of dental impression
materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12:
2449.

755

[5] Nallamuthu NA. Hydrocolloids and cross-infection. PhD

thesis. University of London; 2007.
[6] Nallamuthu N, Braden M, Patel MP. Dimensional changes of
alginate impression materials. J Mater Sci: Mater Med
2006;17:120510.
[7] Martin N, Martin MV, Jedynaliewicz NM. The dimensional
stability of dental impression materials following immersion
in disinfecting solutions. J Dent Res 2007;23:7608.
[8] Abour MAB, ONeilly PJR, Satchel DJ, Pearson GJ. Physical
properties of casts prepared from disinfected alginate. Eur J
Prosthodont Rest Dent 1996;4(4):8791.
[9] Bergman BO, Bergman M, Olsonn S. Alginate impression
materials, dimensional stability and surface detail
sharpness following treatment with disinfecting solutions.
Swedish Dent J 1985;9:25562.
[10] Johnson GH, Chellis KD, Gordon GE, Lepe X. Dimensional
stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid
and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersions. J
Prosthet Dent 1998;79:44653.
[11] Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Effect of disinfecting solutions on
the accuracy of alginate and elastomeric impressions. Scand
J Dent Res 1989;97(5):4705.
[12] Jones ML, Newcombe RG, Barry G, Bellis H, Bottomley JA. A
reex plotter investigation into the dimensional stability of
alginate impressions following disinfection by varying
regimes employing 2.2% Gluteraldehyde. Br J Orthod
1988;15(3):18592.
[13] Minagi S, Fuskikima K, Maeda N, Satomu K, Ohkawa S,
Akagawa Y, et al. Disinfection method for impression
materials; freedom from fear of Hepititus B and acquired
immune decient syndrome. J Prosthet Dent
1986;56(4):4514.
[14] Dimmock NJ, Primrose SB. Introduction to modern virology.
4th ed. Blackwell Science; 1994.
[15] Crank J. Mathematics of diffusion. 2nd ed. Oxford University
Press; 1979, 48.
[16] Gibbs JW. The collected works of J. Willard Gibbs.
Thermodynamics, vol. 1. NY: Longmans, Green, & Co; 1928.
[17] Muniandy K, Thomas AG. Water absorption in rubbers. In:
Polymers in marine environments. Conference 2, paper 13,
vol. 97. London: Transactions of the Institute of Marine
Engineers; 1984. p. 8794.
[18] Flory PJ. Thermodynamics of high polymer solutions. J Chem
Phys 1942;10:5161.
[19] Huggins ML. Solutions of long chain compounds. J Chem
Phys 1941;9:440.
[20] Perform-ID materials safety data sheet. Norderstedt,
Germany: Producer/Supplier: Schlke & Mayr GmbH; 2010.