Literature DB >> 36064393

Digital assessment of properties of the three different generations of dental elastomeric impression materials.

Lamia Singer1,2, Shaymaa I Habib3, Heba El-Amin Shalaby4, Sayed H Saniour3,5, Christoph Bourauel6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the dimensional accuracy, hydrophilicity and detail reproduction of the hybrid vinylsiloxnether with polyether and polyvinylsiloxane parent elastomers using modified digital techniques and software. This was done in an attempt to aid in solving the conflict between the different studies published by competitive manufacturers using different common manual approaches.
METHODS: A polyether, polyvinylsiloxanes and vinyl polyether silicone hybrid elastomeric impression materials were used in the study. Dimensional accuracy was evaluated through taking impressions of a metallic mold with four posts representing a partially edentulous maxillary arch, that were then poured with stone. Accuracy was calculated from the mean of measurements taken between fixed points on the casts using digital single-lens reflex camera to produce high-resolution digital pictures for all the casts with magnification up to 35×. Hydrophilicity was assessed by contact angle measurements using AutoCAD software. The detail reproduction was measured under dry conditions according to ANSI/ADA Standard No. 19 and under wet conditions as per ISO 4823. A metallic mold was used with three V shaped grooves of 20, 50, and 75 µm width. Specimens were prepared and examination was made immediately after setting using digital images at a magnification of 16×.
RESULTS: The hybrid impression (0.035 mm) material showed significantly higher dimensional accuracy compared to the polyether (0.051 mm) but was not as accurate as the polyvinyl siloxane impression material (0.024 mm). The contact angles of the hybrid material before and after setting was significantly lower than the parent materials. With regard to the detail reproduction, the three tested materials were able precisely to reproduce the three grooves of the mold under dry conditions. Whereas, under wet conditions, the hybrid material showed higher prevalence of well-defined reproduction of details same as polyether but higher than polyvinylsiloxane that showed prevalence of details with loss of sharpness and continuity.
CONCLUSIONS: The digital technique used could be a more reliable and an easier method for assessment of impression materials properties. The hybridization of polyvinyl siloxane and polyether yielded a promising material that combines the good merits of both materials and overcomes some of their drawbacks.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dimensional accuracy; Hydrophilicity; Polyether hybrid; Polyvinylsiloxane; Silicone elastomers

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36064393      PMCID: PMC9442984          DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02419-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Oral Health        ISSN: 1472-6831            Impact factor:   3.747


  43 in total

1.  Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  Huan Lu; Belinda Nguyen; John M Powers
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.426

2.  Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material.

Authors:  Thomas Stober; Glen H Johnson; Marc Schmitter
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 3.  Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry.

Authors:  Barry S Rubel
Journal:  Dent Clin North Am       Date:  2007-07

4.  An in vivo study of a clinical surfactant used with poly(vinyl siloxane) impression materials.

Authors:  B J Millar; S M Dunne; P B Robinson
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 1.677

5.  Contact angle of unset elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  Timothy S Menees; Rashmi Radhakrishnan; Lance C Ramp; John O Burgess; Nathaniel C Lawson
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 3.426

6.  An evaluation of eight elastomeric occlusal registration materials.

Authors:  Spiro Megremis; Amer Tiba; Kristy Vogt
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.634

7.  Clinically relevant mechanical properties of elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  J Chai; Y Takahashi; E P Lautenschlager
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.681

Review 8.  Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use.

Authors:  M N Mandikos
Journal:  Aust Dent J       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.291

9.  Evaluation of surface detail reproduction, dimensional stability and gypsum compatibility of monophase polyvinyl-siloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials under dry and moist conditions.

Authors:  Sriharsha Babu Vadapalli; Kaleswararao Atluri; Madhu Sudhan Putcha; Sirisha Kondreddi; N Suman Kumar; Durga Prasad Tadi
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug

Review 10.  Alginate Materials and Dental Impression Technique: A Current State of the Art and Application to Dental Practice.

Authors:  Gabriele Cervino; Luca Fiorillo; Alan Scott Herford; Luigi Laino; Giuseppe Troiano; Giulia Amoroso; Salvatore Crimi; Marco Matarese; Cesare D'Amico; Enrico Nastro Siniscalchi; Marco Cicciù
Journal:  Mar Drugs       Date:  2018-12-29       Impact factor: 5.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.