Evaluating Cost-effectiveness and Mixing Efficacy for Elastomeric and Temporary Restorative Material Using Two Mixing Tips: A SEM-EDS Analysis

Aim: This study aimed to compare the mixing efficacy and cost-effectiveness of new T-mixer tips against the standard double helical tips for a light-body elastomeric impression and a temporary/interim restorative material using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy.

Methodology: Automixed samples (n = 16) were divided into four groups of four samples each: Samples that were mixed with Helical tip for elastomer, T-mixer tip for elastomer, Helical tip for interim restorative material, and T-mixer tip for interim restorative material. These samples were then evaluated for SEM analysis. Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analysis was conducted on three random surface spots and two cross-section spots. Tests for detail reproduction using ADA Specification 19 die and surface roughness using a stylus were also performed. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. (Kindly mention whether the details of reproduction and surface roughness for all the groups are considered. Also, explain what factors SEM and EDS evaluate that contribute to the evaluation of mixing efficiency).

Results: For elastomer surface sample EDS analysis, the p-values were 0.180 (carbon) and 0.065 (silicone). Cross-section samples showed p-values of 0.343 (carbon and silicone). For temporary restorative material EDS analysis, surface p-values were 0.180 (carbon) and 0.394 (silicone), and cross-section p-values were 0.886 (carbon) and 0.686 (silicone). The groups mixed using T-mixer tips showed no change in the mixing efficacy as compared to the group mixed using helical tips for both materials. The p-values for cost-effectiveness were 0.021 for both elastomeric and Protemp temporary restorative material. The groups mixed using T-mixer tips saved more material than groups mixed using the helical tip.

Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the mixing efficacy between T-mixer and helical tips for both materials. However, T-mixer tips are more cost-effective than helical tips.

Clinical significance: The present study would help clinicians make a better choice of selecting the mixing tips when it comes to function as well as cost. The new T-mixer tips are proven to provide a better solution compared to helical tips, which not only would save the clinicians' cost of impression materials and interim restorative materials but also render the same homogeneity as that of the helical tips. The electron microscopic analysis provided a better insight into the homogeneity and hence the mixing efficacy of the samples. The detail reproduction and surface roughness were some additional parameters that weren't a part of the original study model. They were included for the addition of credibility to the conducted study and provided adjunctive results to those obtained by SEM and EDAX analysis. How to cite this article: Bhave RP, Sabane AV, Vijayaraghavan V, et al. Evaluating Cost-effectiveness and Mixing Efficacy for Elastomeric and Temporary Restorative Material Using Two Mixing Tips: A SEM-EDS Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(9):885-890.