1626 Detail Reproduction of Impression Materials on a Wet Surface
R. PERRY, G. KUGEL, E. APPELIN, and B. GREEN, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

Objective: To measure impression detail reproducibility on a wet surface .

Methods: A SiMetricS Micostructure Monocrystal-Silicon standard block (dimensions: groove-depth=5m, groove-width=8m) with 50 periods was used. The standard block was surrounded by a ring mould and 1-drop de-ionized water was placed inside. The ring mould was over-filled with impression material. A perforated cap, followed by a ring spacer, and then glass plates, were placed atop the mould (Total=11.36 kPa). Analysis of lines was done with respect to ISO 4823:2000(E) at 23C. However, a SEM (LEO1530 VP), at magnification=200X, was used to view various polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impression microstructures. Impression materials used included:
   

Impression

Groups

Impression Material

Type

1

DMG Honigum Light

VPS

2

Dentsply Aquasil Ultra XLV

VPS

3

Dentsply Aquasil Ultra LV

VPS

4

Heraeus Kulzer Flexitime Correct Flow

VPS

5

GC Examix NDS

VPS

6

Kettenbach Panasil contact

VPS

7

Coltene Whaledent Affinis

VPS

8

GC Senn Light Body

VPS-Polyether/Hybrid

9

3M ESPE Impregum Garant Soft

Polyether*

10

3M ESPE Permadyne Garant 2:1

Polyether*

11

Heraeus Kulzer P2 Polyether

Polyether**

*Cationic curing

**Condensation curing

Statistics for groups 1-11 were analyzed using a One-way ANOVA (p-value 0.000, α=0.05).

Results:

Using various impression materials, it was shown that groups 9-10 obtained a significantly higher detail impression reproducibility under wet conditions compared to all others. It was not possible to attain results for group 11 because it bonded to the standard block. Among groups 1-8, there was no significant difference in detail impression reproducibility.

Conclusions: Higher detail impression reproducibility is a valuable characteristic when removing intra-oral impressions. Groups 9-10 demonstrated a significantly higher detail impression reproducibility on a wet surface as compared to all other impression materials. Groups 9-10 may indicate a more reliable choice for intra-oral use. Clinical detail impression reproducibility was unable to be determined for group 11.

(Research sponsored in part by 3M ESPE)

Seq #187 - Cell culture, Retention, Impression material
2:00 PM-3:15 PM, Friday, March 23, 2007 Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Exhibit Hall I2-J

Back to the Dental Materials: VIII - Others-Non-metallic Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 85th General Session and Exhibition (March 21-24, 2007)

Top Level Search