World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S1 ( Supplementary Issue 1, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Ozonated Water and 0.5% Sodium Hypochlorite for their Effect of Disinfection and Surface Wettability on Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material

Prathamesh D Fulsundar, Vijaysinh More, Rama Bhadekar, Jinal Bhola

Keywords : Colony count, Dental impression, Disinfection, Infection control, Ozone, Sodium hypochlorite, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Wettability

Citation Information : Fulsundar PD, More V, Bhadekar R, Bhola J. Comparative Evaluation of Ozonated Water and 0.5% Sodium Hypochlorite for their Effect of Disinfection and Surface Wettability on Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material. World J Dent 2022; 13 (S1):S3-S7.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2130

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate and compare the disinfection of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material using ozonated water and 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and their effect on surface wettability. Materials and methods: Fifty circular disks of PVS impression material were fabricated. The samples were divided into three groups group A (20), group B (20), and group C (10). The samples from group A (20) were treated with ozonated water at room temperature for 10 minutes, and samples from group B (20) were treated with NaOCl (0.5%) at room temperature for 10 minutes. Samples of group C (10) were neither contaminated nor disinfected and were used as a control for microbial enumeration and surface wettability. The contact angle goniometer was used to determine the surface wettability using the sessile droplet technique. The plate count technique was used for microbial enumeration. Results: The treatment group with 0.5% NaOCl showed greater contact angle values which indicate decreased surface wettability, while the treatment group with ozonated water showed comparatively lesser contact angle values indicative of a very slight change in surface wettability of PVS impression material. Ozonated water and 0.5% NaOCl showed negligible colony-forming unit (CFU) count indicative of inhibition of bacterial colonies of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus salivarius, and Staphylococcus aureus on PVS impression material. Conclusion: Treatment with ozonated water can significantly reduce microbial count on PVS impression material without a substantial alteration in surface wettability. Clinical significance: Along with the inactivation of microorganisms, disinfection procedures must guarantee that the hydrophilicity of the impression material remains unaltered to facilitate complete surface detail reproduction on the poured casts. As a consequence, more research is necessary to assess the impact of ozonated water on surface properties of various impression materials.

PDF Share
  1. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(1):39–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.013
  2. Lewis DL, Arens M, Harllee R, et al. Risks of infection with blood- and saliva-borne pathogens from internally contaminated impressions and models. Trends Tech Contemp Dent Lab 1995;12(5):30–34. PMID: 9587266.
  3. Hemalatha R, Ganapathy D. Disinfection of dental impression—a current overview. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2016;7(8):661–664.
  4. Whitworth CL, Palmer NOA. Decontamination in primary care dentistry. J Infect Prev 2010;11(6):200–204. DOI: 10.1177/1757177410385368
  5. Sofou A, Larsen T, Fiehn N-E, et al. Contamination level of alginate impressions arriving at a dental laboratory. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6(3):161–165. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-002-0173-4
  6. Kotha SB, Ramakrishnaiah R, Divakar DD, et al. Effect of disinfection and sterilization on the tensile strength, surface roughness, and wettability of elastomers. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8(4). DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12244
  7. Martin N, Martin MV, Jedynakiewicz NM. The dimensional stability of dental impression materials following immersion in disinfecting solutions. Dent Mater 2007;23(6):760–768. DOI: 10.1016/
  8. Milward PJ, Waters MG. The effect of disinfection and a wetting agent on the wettability of addition-polymerized silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86(2):165–167. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.116774
  9. Achen M, Yousef AE. Efficacy of ozone against Escherichia coli O157:H7 on apples. J Food Sci 2001;66(9):1380–1384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb15218.x
  10. Ishizaki K, Sawadaishi K, Miura K, et al. Effect of ozone on plasmid DNA of Escherichia coli in situ. Water Res 1987;21(1):823–827. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(87)90158-8
  11. Chuwa C, Vaidya D, Kathuria D, et al. Ozone (O3): an emerging technology in the food industry. Food Nutr J 2020;5(2):224. DOI: 10.29011/2575-7091.100124
  12. Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, et al. Hydrophilic poly(vinyl siloxane) impression materials: dimensional accuracy, wettability, and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4(3):240–248. PMID: 1810315.
  13. Powell GL, Runnells RD, Saxon BA, et al. The presence and identification of organisms transmitted to dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(2):235–237. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90185-f
  14. McNeill MR, Coulter WA, Hussey DL. Disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5(6):563–567. PMID: 1339136.
  15. Khatri M, Mantri SS, Deogade SC, et al. Effect of chemical disinfection on surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of a new vinyl polyether silicone elastomeric impression material. Contemp Clin Dent 2020;11(1):10–14. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_9_19
  16. Rupp F, Axmann D, Jacobi A, et al. Hydrophilicity of elastomeric non-aqueous impression materials during setting. Dent Mater 2005;21(2):94–102. DOI: 10.1016/
  17. Yuan Y, Lee TR, Gianangelo B, et al. Contact angle and wetting properties. In: Surface Science Techniques. 2013;11(2):3–34.
  18. Blalock JS, Cooper JR, Rueggeberg FA. The effect of chlorine-based disinfectant on wettability of a vinyl polysiloxane impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104(5):333–341. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60151-5
  19. Azarpazhooh A, Limeback H. The application of ozone in dentistry: a systematic review of literature. J Dent 2008;36(2):104–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.008
  20. Aslam R, Alam MS, Saeed PA. Sanitization potential of ozone and its role in postharvest quality management of fruits and vegetables. Food Eng Rev 2020;12(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1007/s12393-019-09204-0
  21. Sharma M, Hudson JB. Ozone gas is an effective and practical antibacterial agent. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(8):559–563. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.10.021
  22. Nagayoshi M, Fukuizumi T, Kitamura C, et al. Efficacy of ozone on survival and permeability of oral microorganisms. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2004;19(4):240–246. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2004.00146.x
  23. Fink CK, Nakamura K, Ichimura S, et al. Silicon oxidation by ozone. J Phys Condens Matter 2009;21(18):183001. DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/21/18/183001
  24. Karg M, Lokare KS, Limberg C, et al. Atomic layer deposition of silica on carbon nanotubes. Chem Mater 2017;29(11):4920–4931. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b01165
  25. Celebi H, Büyükerkmen EB, Torlak E. Disinfection of polyvinyl siloxane impression material by gaseous ozone. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120(1):138–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.003
  26. Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianna ME, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2001;34(6):424–428. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00410.x
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.