PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of two putty-wash impression techniques on the long-term accuracy and dimensional stability of poly(vinyl siloxane) (PVS) in the gingival sulcus area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Impressions were taken from a master cast to simulate molar crown preparation. A space around the abutment served as the gingival sulcus. Fifteen impressions using the one- and two-step impression techniques were taken using Express Regular, Express Fast, and President impression materials with custom trays. Using a Toolmaker's microscope, the long (LD) and short distances (SD) of the abutment and the planar distance between two parallel lines (PL) at the circumference of the cast were taken at 0.5, 2, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, and 144 hours after mixing. ANOVA was performed, with the discrepancy between the distances of the impressions and the master cast as the dependent variable. RESULTS: The differences when different materials and impression techniques were used were significant (p < 0.001) for LD, SD, and PL, as was the interaction between the material, time, and technique (p < 0.001). SD discrepancies were higher than those of LD for all materials and times. The two-step impression technique was more accurate, with smaller discrepancies than the one-step impression technique. For all materials, the PL discrepancy was deemed acceptable (less than 0.5%) for all tested times. President had higher discrepancies than the other materials. CONCLUSIONS: When using the two-step putty-wash impression technique, pouring of the impressions may be postponed up to 30 hours; however, when using the one-step impression technique, pouring should be performed within 2 hours.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of two putty-wash impression techniques on the long-term accuracy and dimensional stability of poly(vinyl siloxane) (PVS) in the gingival sulcus area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Impressions were taken from a master cast to simulate molar crown preparation. A space around the abutment served as the gingival sulcus. Fifteen impressions using the one- and two-step impression techniques were taken using Express Regular, Express Fast, and President impression materials with custom trays. Using a Toolmaker's microscope, the long (LD) and short distances (SD) of the abutment and the planar distance between two parallel lines (PL) at the circumference of the cast were taken at 0.5, 2, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, and 144 hours after mixing. ANOVA was performed, with the discrepancy between the distances of the impressions and the master cast as the dependent variable. RESULTS: The differences when different materials and impression techniques were used were significant (p < 0.001) for LD, SD, and PL, as was the interaction between the material, time, and technique (p < 0.001). SD discrepancies were higher than those of LD for all materials and times. The two-step impression technique was more accurate, with smaller discrepancies than the one-step impression technique. For all materials, the PL discrepancy was deemed acceptable (less than 0.5%) for all tested times. President had higher discrepancies than the other materials. CONCLUSIONS: When using the two-step putty-wash impression technique, pouring of the impressions may be postponed up to 30 hours; however, when using the one-step impression technique, pouring should be performed within 2 hours.
Authors: Stefan Rues; Thomas Stober; Thomas Bargum; Peter Rammelsberg; Andreas Zenthöfer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 3.573