Objectives: Polyether materials are stiff sometimes making impression removal difficult. This study compared clinicians' ratings of the clinical handling characteristics of A)Impregum Penta Soft, 3M ESPE, B) Impregum Penta, 3M ESPE, C) Aquasil Deca Monophase, Dentsply, using clinical surveys. Methods: Impression materials were issued in plane wrap containers with 10 dentists making 15 impressions with each material. Immediately after making each impression, the dentist completed a survey form. Results: Characteristics evaluated in the questionnaire were:1. flowability (10=excellent), 2. viscosity: a. material drips from syringe tip (10=very thick), b. material slumps in tray (10=very thick). 3. Hydrophilicity (10=very hydrophilic), 4. breakage of initial seal (10=very easy), 5. ease of impression removal (10=very easy), 6. quality of blending of syringe and tray material (10=excellent), 7. taste (10=delicious), 8. mixing (10=perfectly homogeneous), 9. adherence to impression tray (10=excellent), 10. detail reproduction (10=all margins present), 11. recommend material to a colleague? (10=absolutely).

Mean Survey Response of the Elastomeric Impression Material Groups (GRP)

GRP	1	2a	2b	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
A	8.2	7.5	7.8	8.2	5.1	5.2	8.5	6.0	8.3	8.5	8.5	8.0
B	8.3	7.5	8.0	8.1	5.1	4.8	8.4	4.9	8.6	8.5	8.6	7.9
C	6.6	6.8	8.2	6.9	6.3	6.5	7.7	6.9	8.0	8.0	7.5	6.2

Conclusions: No differences were found for most categories except for flowability, hydrophilicity, impression removal and colleague recommendation were significantly higher for the polyethers.  Improved taste was reported for group A vs B. This study was funded by 3M ESPE.

Back to the Prosthodontics Research Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search