Glen H Johnson1, Xavier Lepe, Tar Chee Aw. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Box 357456, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7456, USA. gjohnson@u.washington.edu
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Monophase and dual-viscosity impression techniques are available with little knowledge of which one might render better quality under wet and dry surface conditions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether type of material, viscosity selection, and presence of moisture affect detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-viscosity systems were polyether (Impregum Penta) and vinyl polysiloxanes (President MonoBody, Extrude MPV, and Aquasil). Dual-viscosity systems included polyether (Impregum Penta/Permadyne Garant) and vinyl polysiloxanes (Dimension Penta H/Dimension Garant L, Extrude Extra/Extrude Wash, and Aquasil/Aquasil LV). Impressions were made of a surface analyzer calibration standard possessing a uniform "saw-tooth" pattern with a mean roughness (Ra) of 2.87 mum, which was one fourth of the peak-to-valley height. Each of the 8 impression groups was subjected to dry (control) and wet conditions. The wet condition consisted of 3 mL of distilled water applied to the surface of the standard but allowed to escape during the procedure. Eighty impressions were made, 5 for each test group. After setting, the surface of each impression was scanned at 5 locations using a Surfanalyzer 4000. A 3-factor ANOVA and Student-Newman-Kuels test were used to analyze the data (alpha=.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between polyether and vinyl polysiloxane materials, dual and monophase techniques, and the 2 surface conditions (P<.05). Cross-product interactions were not significant, allowing comparison of mean values for each factor. The mean Ra for single viscosity was 2.21 mum versus 1.67 mum for dual viscosity; polyether was 2.12 mum versus 1.89 mum for addition silicone; and under dry conditions, the mean was 2.04 mum versus 1.86 mum for wet conditions. CONCLUSION: Single-viscosity systems reproduced the standard saw-tooth pattern better than the dual-viscosity systems, as did polyether impression materials compared to addition silicones. Moisture led to a lower Ra or less detail compared to dry conditions.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Monophase and dual-viscosity impression techniques are available with little knowledge of which one might render better quality under wet and dry surface conditions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether type of material, viscosity selection, and presence of moisture affect detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-viscosity systems were polyether (Impregum Penta) and vinyl polysiloxanes (President MonoBody, Extrude MPV, and Aquasil). Dual-viscosity systems included polyether (Impregum Penta/Permadyne Garant) and vinyl polysiloxanes (Dimension Penta H/Dimension Garant L, Extrude Extra/Extrude Wash, and Aquasil/Aquasil LV). Impressions were made of a surface analyzer calibration standard possessing a uniform "saw-tooth" pattern with a mean roughness (Ra) of 2.87 mum, which was one fourth of the peak-to-valley height. Each of the 8 impression groups was subjected to dry (control) and wet conditions. The wet condition consisted of 3 mL of distilled water applied to the surface of the standard but allowed to escape during the procedure. Eighty impressions were made, 5 for each test group. After setting, the surface of each impression was scanned at 5 locations using a Surfanalyzer 4000. A 3-factor ANOVA and Student-Newman-Kuels test were used to analyze the data (alpha=.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between polyether and vinyl polysiloxane materials, dual and monophase techniques, and the 2 surface conditions (P<.05). Cross-product interactions were not significant, allowing comparison of mean values for each factor. The mean Ra for single viscosity was 2.21 mum versus 1.67 mum for dual viscosity; polyether was 2.12 mum versus 1.89 mum for addition silicone; and under dry conditions, the mean was 2.04 mum versus 1.86 mum for wet conditions. CONCLUSION: Single-viscosity systems reproduced the standard saw-tooth pattern better than the dual-viscosity systems, as did polyether impression materials compared to addition silicones. Moisture led to a lower Ra or less detail compared to dry conditions.
Authors: Luciana Martinelli Santayana de Lima; Gilberto Antonio Borges; Luiz Henrique Burnett Junior; Ana Maria Spohr Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2014-06-26