Dental Materials Journal 2010; 29(3): 309–315

The influence of storing alginate impressions sprayed with disinfectant on

dimensional accuracy and deformation of maxillary edentulous stone
models
Hisako HIRAGUCHI1,2, Masahiro KAKETANI1,2, Hideharu HIROSE1,2 and Takayuki YONEYAMA1,2
1
Department of Dental Materials, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8310, Japan
2
Division of Biomaterials Science, Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-
8310, Japan
Corresponding author, Hisako HIRAGUCHI; E-mail: hiraguchi@dent.nihon-u.ac.jp


This study investigated the effects of storing impressions for 3 hours after spraying them with a disinfectant solution on dimensional
change and deformation of maxillary edentulous stone models. Three brands of alginate impression materials, characterized by a
small degree of contraction in 100% relative humidity, were used. The spray disinfectants used were 1% sodium hypochlorite solution
and 2% glutaraldehyde solution. A stone model taken from an impression that had not been sprayed or stored was prepared as a
control. The results indicated that the differences in dimensional change between the control and disinfected stone models were less
than 24 µm, and that no deformation was observed in the stone models.

Keywords: Alginate impression materials, Spray disinfection, Dimensional accuracy



product characterized by smaller contraction in 100%

INTRODUCTION
During the process of dental treatment, it is important
to disinfect impressions as well as equipment so as to
prevent infection1-4). However, immersion disinfection
of alginate impressions has been reported to deteriorate
the dimensional accuracy of resultant stone models due
to imbibition of the impressions during immersion5,6).
Consequently, protracted immersion of alginate
impressions has been shown to cause large dimensional
changes in impressions7). To overcome these distortion
issues, the American Dental Association (ADA)
recommended that alginate impressions be sprayed
with an ADA-approved disinfectant, and then sealed in
a plastic bag according to the recommended disinfection
time1).
With regard to the spray disinfection method, it
was mooted that if thus-disinfected impressions could
be stored for a long time after disinfectant spraying,
they could then be carried back to a dental clinic to
have stone models made for elderly patients receiving
dental treatment at home. On the effect of long-term
storage on the dimensional accuracy and deformation
of stone models, a previous study reported that under a
relative humidity of 100%, the degree of dimensional
change in alginate impressions varied according to the
different alginate impression products tested8). In
addition, the effect of storage period of alginate
impressions —in a sealed bag after being sprayed with
disinfectant— on the dimensional accuracy of stone
models was also investigated9). This investigation9) was
carried out using metal trays and a master model to
simulate a sectional form of a residual ridge. It was
then found that storage up to 3 hours after spraying
was clinically acceptable for an alginate impression

Received Sep 8, 2009: Accepted Jan 14, 2010
doi:10.4012/dmj.2009-083 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2009-083
relative humidity9).
In light of the encouraging result obtained in the
previous study9), the purpose of the present study was
to investigate the effect of storing alginate impressions
for 3 hours, after spraying them with disinfectant, on
the dimensional accuracy of maxillary stone models.
This experiment was carried out using an edentulous
study model and commercially available stock trays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials used
Materials used in this study were listed in Table 1, and
they were used according to the manufacturers’
instructions. For the alginate impression materials,
three product brands —characterized by their small
degree of contraction in 100% relative humidity based
on the results of a previous study8), which examined
the dimensional changes of 10 brands of alginate
impression products under 100% relative humidity for
4 hours— were used as test materials: Algiace Z (ACZ;
Dentsply-Sankin, Tochigi, Japan), Star-Mix (STM;
Nippon Shiken Dental, Tokyo, Japan), and Alginoplast
EM (APE; Heraeus Kulzer Japan, Osaka, Japan).
An automatic mixer (Super Rakuneru, GC, Tokyo,
Japan) was used to mix the alginate impression
materials and a type V dental stone (New Plastone,
GC, Tokyo, Japan). An adhesive (Technicol Bond, GC,
Tokyo, Japan) was used for the retention of alginate
impression materials to the metal impression trays.
The disinfectants investigated in this study were
1% sodium hypochlorite solution and 2% glutaraldehyde
solution. Two disinfectant product brands were used
as test materials: Purelox (6% sodium hypochlorite;
310 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315

Table 1 Materials used in this study

Code Brand name Manufacturer Lot No. W/P (ml/g)

Alginate impression material

ACZ Algiace Z Dentsply-Sankin, Tochigi, Japan 379-402 2.27
STM Star Mix Nippon Shiken Dental, Tokyo, Japan 3020619 2.33
APE Alginoplast EM Heraeus Kulzer Japan, Osaka, Japan 19 58861 2.38

Dental stone
― New Plastone GC, Tokyo, Japan 0505091 0.24

Sodium hypochlorite
SH Purelox Oyalox, Tokyo, Japan 3633 ―

Glutaraldehyde
GA Sterihyde Maruishi Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan 3X09A ―

Oyalox, Tokyo, Japan) and Sterihyde (20%

glutaraldehyde, Maruishi Pharmaceutical, Osaka,
Japan). These sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde
disinfectants were then diluted with deionized water to
concentrations of 1% and 2% respectively.

Fabrication of stone models

Figure 1 shows a master die (Dental Study Model G1-
402, Nissin Dental Products, Kyoto, Japan) and a
perforated metal tray (Coe DC STO-K Tray U-4-0, GC
America, Chicago, IL, USA) with the apparatus
mounted on a stand, which was adjusted to an
impression thickness of 5 mm at the top of the alveolar
ridge. This equipment was used in the stone model Fig. 1 Master die fixed on a plate with stand (left) and
fabrication system10) for standardized coordinate perforated tray (right).
positioning outside a stone model for a three-
dimensional analysis of the dimensional changes and
deformation of stone models. A diagram depicting the
setup of the master die and stand, including the tray,
is shown in Fig. 2. In this system, the master die and
stone model had the same standardized coordinates
positioned on the stand, whereby they could be replaced
with each other at the same location in relation to the
stand.
The procedure used to make a stone model was as
follows. The perforated metal tray, overfilled with a
mixed alginate impression material, was seated on the
master die and immediately secured to the stand with
three set screws. At five minutes after the start of
alginate mixing, this assembly was inverted, and three
set screws which secured the stand to the plate were
removed. At seven minutes after the start of alginate
mixing, the master die was removed in an upward
direction using a pullout handle attached to a screw, at
a crosshead speed of 500 mm/min using a universal Fig. 2 Diagram depicting the setup of the master die and
testing instrument (Model 5567, Instron, Canton, MA, stand, including the perforated tray.
USA). A: Master die; B: Stand; C: Perforated tray; D:
The impression was rinsed under tap water for 60 Clamp to hold tray on stand; E: Tray guide; F:
seconds, and then sprayed for 30 seconds to coat the Plate used to secure master die to stand; and G:
impression surface with disinfectant. The impression Screw of the pullout handle used to remove the
master die.
was then stored in a sealed plastic bag for 3 hours9),
 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315
Fig. 3 Upper diagram: X and Y axial directions and
measured profiles of the X-Y sections (Z=15 mm),
Y-Z sections (X=50, 60, and 70 mm), and X-Z
sections (Y=55, 70, and 89 mm) of the master die
and stone models.
Lower diagram: X and Y axial directions and the
measured positions (points 1–26) of the master die
and stone models.
with the impression surface facing downward. After
storage, the impression was rinsed under tap water
again for 60 seconds to remove the disinfectant.
Temperature of the water used was 23±1°C.
A dental stone mixture was poured into the
impression and allowed to set. At 1 hour after the
start of stone mixing, the stone model was removed
from the impression and stored at room temperature
for 24 hours prior to the taking of three-dimensional
measurements. For the control, it was also a stone
model prepared from the impression but which was
neither sprayed nor stored. Finally, five stone models
were prepared for each condition: the control (C), 3-
hour storage after spraying with 1% sodium
hypochlorite solution (SH), and 3-hour storage after
spraying with 2% glutaraldehyde solution (GA).
Three-dimensional measurement for dimensional
changes
Measurements were made using a three-dimensional
311
coordinate measurement system (XYZAX GC400D,
Tokyo Seimitsu, Tokyo, Japan) in the same manner as
described in previous studies6,11). As shown in Fig. 3,
the standardized coordinates were positioned on the
stand. The profiles of the X-Y sections (Z=15 mm), Y-Z
sections (X=50, 60, and 70 mm), and X-Z sections
(Y=55, 70, and 89 mm) of the master die and stone
models were measured at a 0.5-mm pitch using a
touch-trigger electron probe fitted with a 1.0-mm feeler
ball. Cubic curve interpolation12) was performed on the
data of the master die, and nominal values at 0.5-mm
intervals were obtained. The distance between the
nominal values of the master die and the profile
determined by cubic curve interpolation of the stone
model’s measurement data were calculated (hereafter:
deviation). Sectional profiles based on the nominal
values of the master die were plotted graphically, and
so were profiles based on the measured data of the
stone models —including the deviations. Deformation
of the stone models for each condition was evaluated
from the latter.
Dimensional changes in the stone models were also
evaluated. The mean value of the deviations of six
nominal values6) at each intersection point (1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26
in Fig. 3) of the measured profiles was defined as the
dimensional change of each intersection. For the other
points (2, 8, 11, 17, 20, and 25 in Fig. 3), the mean
value of the deviations of three nominal values6) of the
measured profiles was defined as the dimensional
change of each point. On dimensional change signs, a
positive (+) sign indicated displacement toward the
tray, whereas the opposite direction was given a
negative (−) sign. Dimensional change data at points
1−26 of the stone models were subjected to Tukey’s
multiple comparison tests (α=0.05) for statistical
comparison among the conditions.
The entire experiment was conducted at a room
temperature of 23±1°C and with a relative humidity of
50±10%.
RESULTS
Deformation of the stone models
The sectional profiles of the X-Y section (Z=15 mm), X-
Z section (Y=55 mm), and Y-Z section (X=60 mm) as
based on the nominal values of the master die are
shown in Fig. 4, and so are the measured profiles —
including the deviations— of the stone models obtained
from ACZ impressions. The deviations were magnified
25 times so that the deformation of the stone models
could be evaluated.
As seen in Fig. 4, results of the control (C), 3-hour
storage after spraying with 1% sodium hypochlorite
solution (SH), and 3-hour storage after spraying with
2% glutaraldehyde solution (GA) are shown
respectively. The measured profiles —including
deviations— of C, SH, and GA revealed a displacement
of the stone models toward the tray. However, the
measured profiles showed no differences between the
312 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315

Fig. 4 Sectional profiles of stone models obtained from ACZ impressions (α) and master die (β). The deviations were
magnified by 25 times for the expression.
Left diagram: Impression was neither sprayed nor stored (C). Deviations were magnified by 25 times for the
expression.
Center diagram: Impression was stored for 3 hours after spraying with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (SH).
Right diagram: Impression was stored for 3 hours after spraying with 2% glutaraldehyde solution (GA).

control and the other models, regardless of the

DISCUSSION
disinfectant solution used.
As for the measured profiles —including the In a previous study , it was reported that impressions
9)

deviations— of the stone models obtained from STM
and APE impressions, similar results were obtained.
Dimensional changes of the stone models
The dimensional changes at points 1−26 on the stone
models obtained from ACZ, STM, and APE impressions
are shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7 respectively.
In the stone models obtained from ACZ
impressions, the dimensional changes with SH at
points 3, 4, and 11 were significantly smaller than
those of C (Fig. 5). In the stone models obtained from
STM impressions, the dimensional changes with SH
and/or GA at points 3, 4, and 6 were significantly
smaller than those of C (Fig. 6). In the stone models
obtained from APE impressions, the dimensional
change with GA at point 1 was significantly larger than
that of C (Fig. 7).
For all the stone models within each alginate
impression material group, there were no significant
differences between the disinfectant solutions, except
for the dimensional changes of stone models obtained
from the STM impressions at point 4.
which underwent a large degree of contraction in 100%
relative humidity should not be stored for even one
hour. Conversely, impressions which underwent a
small degree of contraction in 100% relative humidity
could be stored up to 3 hours because they exhibited
clinically acceptable dimensional changes9). However,
these results were obtained by means of a simplistic
master model and an accompanying metal tray. The
master model was surrounded completely by the metal
tray. In a clinical setting, many impressions are taken
when a complete set of dentures is to be made, and
stock trays are often used. Therefore, it is important
to investigate the dimensional changes of stone models
using an edentulous study model and commercially
available stock trays.
When an impression is firmly attached to the tray,
the stone model displaces toward the tray due to an
expansion of the stone while setting and a contraction
of the impression. On the other hand, when the stone
model displaces in the opposite direction from the tray,
it is due to an expansion of the impression as a result
of water absorption from rinsing and disinfectant
spraying13).
In the present study, the impression tray was open
at the posterior portion of the edentulous model
 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315
Fig. 5 Dimensional changes at points 1–26 on stone
models obtained from ACZ impressions.
*: Significant difference at p<0.05.
impression. Thus, expansion of the impression at the
posterior portion due to water absorption was
anticipated to be larger than that at the anterior
portion of the edentulous model14). Results of the stone
models obtained from ACZ impressions indicated that
the dimensional changes with SH were significantly
smaller than those of C at points 3, 4, and 11 —and
these points were defined at the posterior portion of the
edentulous model. This result was thought to be
313
Fig. 6 Dimensional changes at points 1–26 on stone
models obtained from STM impressions.
*: Significant difference at p<0.05.
caused by an expansion of the impression at the
posterior part due to disinfectant solution remaining on
the impression surface, in addition to expansion
resulting from a second rinsing after storage.
For the stone models obtained from STM
impressions, the dimensional changes with SH and/or
GA were significantly smaller than those of C at points
3, 4, and 6. Similarly, these points were defined at the
posterior portion of the edentulous model, and thus this
314 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315
Fig. 7 Dimensional changes at points 1–26 on stone
models obtained from APE impressions.
*: Significant difference at p<0.05
result was also thought to be caused by an expansion
of the impression at the posterior part. In particular at
point 4, the dimensional change with GA was
significantly smaller than that with SH. This result
indicated that expansion of the impression due to 2%
glutaraldehyde solution remaining on the impression
surface was larger than that with 1% sodium
hypochlorite solution. However, the difference in
dimensional changes of the stone models between GA
and SH was merely 11 µm. Furthermore, there were
no significant differences between the disinfectant
solutions for the stone models obtained from the other
two impression materials. This latter result agreed
with a previous study9) in that stone models obtained
from alginate impressions showed no significant
differences between the different types of disinfectants
after spray disinfection. In light of all these results, it
was thus suggested that the type of disinfectant had a
small effect on the dimensional changes of stone
models.
For the stone models obtained from APE
impressions, the dimensional change with GA at point
1 was significantly larger than that of C. This result
was thought to be caused by a contraction of the
impression during storage in a sealed bag. For APE
impressions, there were no significant decreases in
dimensional changes caused by the effect of expansion
of the impression. This meant that the significant
increases in dimensional change were caused by the
contraction of the impression. At point 1, the difference
in dimensional changes of the stone models between
GA and C was 11 µm. In contrast, this was not so for
ACZ and STM impressions in that there were no
significant increases in the dimensional changes of SH
or GA from that of C. In light of these findings, it was
thus suggested that contraction of impressions stored
in sealed bags had little influence on the dimensional
changes of stone models.
As a guideline for infection control, the Japan
Prosthodontic Society recommended that alginate
impressions be immersed in 0.1−1.0% sodium
hypochlorite solution for 15−30 minutes4). For alginate
impressions characterized by small dimensional change
in water, the dimensional accuracy of their resultant
stone models was only slightly affected by immersion
disinfection15). In a previous study6), it was reported
that the immersion of an alginate impression —
characterized by small dimensional change in water—
in a 0.5 or 1.0% sodium hypochlorite solution for 15
minutes did not result in large-scale deformation of the
resultant stone models. Notably, the differences in
dimensional change between the stone models produced
with disinfected impressions and those of the control
were less than 45 µm6).
In the present study, the spray disinfection method
also did not lead to serious deformation of the stone
models. The differences in dimensional change between
the stone models produced with disinfected impressions
and those of the control were less than 24 µm. These
results indicated that spray disinfection of alginate
impressions, which were characterized by small
dimensional change under 100% relative humidity, did
not adversely influence the dimensional accuracy of the
resultant stone models when compared to immersion
disinfection.
In terms of practical applications, the immersion
disinfection method has a niche in dental offices where
dental stone is poured into a mold immediately after
taking an impression. For the spray disinfection
 Dent Mater J 2010; 29(3): 309–315
method, it is an effective and handy means to enable
alginate impressions to be carried from elderly patients’
homes to dental clinics for the fabrication of stone
models.
CONCLUSION
For alginate impressions which were characterized by
small dimensional change under 100% relative
humidity, storage for 3 hours after spraying them with
a disinfectant solution was a feasible disinfection
method.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported in part by a grant from the
Dental Research Center, as well as by the Sato Fund
from the Nihon University School of Dentistry.
REFERENCES
1) Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment,
Council on Dental Practice, Council on Dental Therapeutics.
Infection control recommendations for the dental office and
the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116: 241-248.
2) Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment.
Disinfection of impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 1991; 122:
110.
3) Blair FM, Wassell RW. A survey of the methods of
disinfection of dental impressions used in dental hospitals
in the United Kingdom. Br Dent J 1996; 180: 369-375.
4) The Japan Prosthodontic Society. A Guideline for Infection
Control Protocol in Prosthodontic Practice. Ann Jpn
Prosthodont Soc 2007; 51: 629-689.
5) Rueggeberg FA, Beall FE, Kelly MT, Schuster GS. Sodium
hypochlorite disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid
impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 628-631.
315
6) Hiraguchi H. Influence of immersion of alginate
impressions in disinfectant solutions on the reproducibility
of maxillary edentulous working casts. Nihon Univ Dent J
2001; 75: 269-280.
7) Motegi T. Dimensional stability of alginate impression
materials —Effect of immersion in disinfectant solutions. J
J Dent Mater 1987; 6: 747-761.
8) Hiraguchi H, Nakagawa H. Storage of impressions
following spray with disinfectant solutions in dental
treatment for elderly patients at home. Part 1. Effect of
long-term storage of alginate impressions in sealed bag on
the dimensional accuracy and deformation of stone models.
J J Gerodont 2004; 18: 309-316.
9) Hiraguchi H, Nakagawa H, Wakashima M, Miyanaga K,
Sakaguchi S, Nishiyama M. Effect of storage period of
alginate impressions following spray with disinfectant
solutions on the dimensional accuracy and deformation of
stone models. Dent Mater J 2005; 24: 36-42.
10) Hiraguchi H, Kobayashi K, Sekiguchi E, Habu H. Three
dimensional measurement of stone cast deformation —A
pilot study. J J Dent Mater 1985; 4: 1-10.
11) Hashimoto K. Three-dimensional analysis on the
reproducibility of denturous working models —The
influences of various impression materials evaluated by the
normal deviation. J J Dent Mater 1988; 7: 386-405.
12) Tokyo Seimitsu Co. Ltd. Software operating instructions:
Profile measurement program. Tokyo: 1986. p. 100-102.
13) Ogura H, Takahashi H, Miyazaki T, Oda Y, Unemoto K,
Kozono Y. Essentials of dental materials science, 1th ed.
Tokyo: Ishiyaku Publishers Inc; 2008. p. 42.
14) Sekiguchi E. Study on the dimensional stability of alginate
impression materials —Effects of impression thickness,
impression diameter and retentive condition with a tray. J
J Dent Mater 1988; 7: 861-874.
15) Hiraguchi H, Nakagawa H, Uchida H, Tanabe N.
Disinfection of impressions in dental treatment for elderly
patients at home —Effect of W/P ratio of alginate impression
materials on the dimensional accuracy and deformation of
stone models. J J Dent Mater 2002; 21: 313-322.