sdj-10090

Accuracy of some Elastic Impression Materials Used in Prosthetic Dentistry

Fahd S. Ikram*, Jawad M. Mikaeel*, Ranj A. Omer*

*Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

Submitted: 26/05/2019; Accepted: 30/09/2019; Published 29/12/2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10090

Abstract

Objective: Elastic impression materials considered favourable decision in fixed and removable prosthesis due to ease of use and accuracy. High price tag is the main drawback. The purpose of this study was to evaluate surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of newly introduced 3M Preliminary PentaTM VPS in comparison to other elastic impression.

Methods: Alginate, alginate replacement and 3M light body were tested for surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability. Ten samples were prepared for each using a stainless-steel die that was created according to ADA specification No. 18 and 19. Surface detail was assessed directly after setting while dimensional stability was evaluated immediately and 24hr after. The data were analysed using a paired sample t-test.

Results: All the samples were able to record 75μm line for surface detail. Surface record of 3M imprintTM 4 Preliminary PentaTM VPS showed a similar result to light body. While alginate failed to reproduce 50μm and 20μm lines. Regards to dimensional stability, light body resisted change with respect to time. In contrast, alginate revealed a significant effect (p˂0.05) on dimensional stability for the same storage period while not a major effect was observed for alginate replacement.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that light body underwent less dimensional change than alginate and alginate replacement. It also revealed a better replication of details. Alginate replacement was more stable during the storage period with better surface detail record than alginate.

Keywords: Alginate, 3M light body, 3M imprint™ 4 Preliminary Penta, Elastomeric. Full Article - PDF

References:

1. Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):629-42.

2. Cervino G, Fiorillo L, Herford A, Laino L, Troiano G, Amoroso G, et al. Alginate materials and dental impression technique: A current state of the art and application to dental practice. Mar Drugs. 2019;17(1):18.

3. Hamrun N, Thalib B, Tahir D, Hamudeng AM, Akbar FH. Physical properties of irreversible hydrocolloid dental impression materials obtained from brown algae species Padina sp. J Phys Conf Ser. 2018;1073:052018.

4. McCullagh A, Sweet C, Ashley M. Making a good impression (A ‘How to’Paper on Dental Alginate). Dent Update. 2005;32(3):169-75.

5. Patel D, Perryer DG, Walmsley AD. Are we abusing our alginate impressions? Dental Nursing. 2008;4(3):650-3

6. Kaur G, Jain P, Uppal M, Sikka R. Alginate impression materials: from then till now. Heal Talk J Clin Dent. 2012;5(2):38-9.

7. Giordano R. Impression materials: basic properties. Gen Dent. 2000;48(5):510-6.

8. Shannon A. Expanded clinical uses of a novel tissue-retraction material. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2002;23(1 Suppl):3-6.

9. Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Lee Musikant B, Deutsch AS. Tear strength of four irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials. J Prosthodont. 1998;7(2):111-13.

10. Pescatore C. A predictable gingival retraction system. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2002;23(1 Suppl):7-12.

11. Jamani KD. The effect of pouring time and storage condition on the accuracy of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. Saudi Dent J. 2002;14(3):126-30.

12. Walker MP, Burckhard J, Mitts DA, Williams KB. Dimensional change over time of extended-storage alginate impression materials. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1110-15.

13. Nassar U, Aziz T, Flores-Mir C. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials as a function of pouring time: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2011;106(2):126-33.

14. Charbeneau GT, Brandau HE. Principles and practice of operative dentistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1988. 496 p.

15. Davis BA, Powers JM. Effect of immersion disinfection on properties of impression materials. J Prosthodont.1994;3(1):31-34.

16. Braden M. The quest for a new impression rubber. J Dent. 1976;4(1):1-4.

17. Keyf F. Some properties of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Islam Acad Sci. 1994;7(1):44-8.

18. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2016.

19. Eames WB, Wallace SW, Suway NB, Rogers LB. Accuracy and dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;42(2):159-62.

20. Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL. Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil. 1983;10(4):325-33.

21. Petrie CS, Walker MP, O’Mahony AM, Spencer P. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(4):365-72.

22. Pace SL. Polyvinyl impression materials vs. alginate impression materials. Contemp Dental Assisting. 2006;20-3.

23. Boksman L, Tousignant G. Alginate substitutes: rationale for their use. Dent Today. 2009;28(4):104- 05.

24. ISO 1563 (1990) Dental alginate impression material. International organization for standardization.

25. ADA. Council on Scientific Affairs. American Dental Association Specification No. 18: Alginate Impression Materials. Chicago, Ill: ADA; 1992.

26. Walker MP, Rondeau M, Petrie C, Tasca A, Williams K. Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(5):343-51.

27. Revised American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for Non-Aqueous, Elastomeric Dental Impression Materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94(4):733-41.

28. Owen CP. An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products: Part II. A refined discriminatory procedure. J Oral Rehabil. 1986;13(2):147-62.

29. Nassar U, Chow AK. Surface Detail Reproduction and Effect of Disinfectant and Long-Term Storage on the Dimensional Stability of a Novel Vinyl Polyether Silicone Impression Material: Dimensional Stability of a Vinyl Polyether Silicone Material. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(6):494-8.

30. Manar J. Alginate as impression material. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;4(3):300-3.

31. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2013. 571p.

32. ISO 4823: 2000. Dentistry–elastomeric impression materials. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.

33. Walker MP, Petrie CS, Haj-Ali R, Spencer P, Dumas C, Williams K. Moisture effect on polyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction. J Prosthodont.2005;14(3):158- 63.

34. German MJ, Carrick TE, McCabe JF. Surface detail reproduction of elastomeric impression materials related to rheological properties. Dent Mater. 2008;24(7):951-56.

35. Pratten DH, Novetsky M. Detail reproduction of soft tissue: a comparison of impression materials. J Prosthodont. 1991;65(2):188-91.

36. Noort R van. Introduction to dental materials. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier Mosby; 2013. 246 p.

37. Craig RG, Powers JM, editors. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002. 704 p.

38. O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Pub; 2002. 418 p.

39. Imbery TA, Nehring J, Janus C, Moon PC. Accuracy and dimensional stability of extended- pour and conventional alginate impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(1):32-9.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.