Comparative Evaluation of Tear Strength and Tensile Strength of Different Types of Gingival Mask Materials: An In Vitro Study

TL;DR

This study compares the tear and tensile strength of three gingival mask materials over time to determine their durability and performance in dental applications.

Contribution

The study provides a comparative in vitro evaluation of tear and tensile strength changes in three commercial gingival mask materials over time.

Findings

Esthetic mask auto mix showed the highest tear and tensile strength compared to Gi-Mask and Gingifast Rigid.

Tensile strength of all materials decreased as time increased.

Gi-Mask had the lowest tear strength among the tested materials.

Abstract

Introduction: 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.

Aim and objective: 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.

Materials and methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Figures