Viscosity effects of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials on the accuracy of the stone die produced
Background and Aim: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of different viscosities of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression materials on the accuracy of the stone die produced.
Methods: A three-unit bridge master model was fabricated using cold-cure acrylic resin. Four combinations of different viscosities of PVS impression materials - regular body (monophase) alone, light body with regular body, light body with heavy body, and light body with putty - were used to make an impression of the master model. Ten impressions from each group were taken and Type IV gypsum stone was used to generate the dies. The dies were measured at the inter-abutment distance, occlusogingival length, and shoulder width with a measuring microscope and were compared with the master model using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey (honest significant difference) test.
Results: Differences were found for inter-abutment distance between the master model and the light body with regular body and light body with putty dies (both P < 0.02). A difference was found for shoulder width between the master model and the regular body alone die (P = 0.01). No differences were found for occlusogingival distance (all P > 0.08).
Conclusion: Results suggested inter-abutment distance was most accurate when using a PVS light body combination. Occlusogingival length was accurate using any of the studied PVS combinations, and shoulder width was more accurate when using the regular body PVS.
Relevance for patients: These results should be considered when choosing the viscosity of the PVS to use for producing impressions of high accuracy and fabricating a well-fitting fixed prosthesis.
[1] Perakis N, Belser UC, Magne P. Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004;24:109-17.
[2] Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT, 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont. 2002;11:98-108.
[3] Tjan AH, Whang SB, Tjan AH, Sarkissian R. Clinically oriented evaluation of the accuracy of commonly used impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56:4-8.
[4] Wassell RW, Barker D, Walls AW. Crowns and other extra- coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J. 2002;192:679-84, 687-690.
[5] Vinyl polysiloxane impression materials: a status report. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;120:595-596, 598, 600.
[6] Craig RG, Urquiola NJ, Liu CC. Comparison of commercial elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent. 1990;15:94-104.
[7] McCabe JF, Storer R. Elastomeric impression materials. The measurement of some properties relevant to clinical practice. Br Dent J. 1980;149:73-79.
[8] O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 3rd ed. New Malden, UK: Quintessence Publishing Co; 2002, p. 90-112.
[9] Shillingburg HT, Jr., Hatch RA, Keenan MP, Hemphill MW. Impression materials and techniques used for cast restorations in eight states. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;100:696-699.
[10] Anusavice KJ. Phillips' science of dental materials. 11th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2003, p. 219-221.
[11] McCabe JF, Walls AWG. Applied dental materials. 9th ed. Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing; 2008, p. 169-172.
[12] Hung SH, Purk JH, Tira DE, Eick JD. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67:583-589.
[13] Bansal PK. Comparison of dimensional accuracy using two elastomeric impression materials in fixed prosthodontics. Pak Oral Dent J. 2010;30:537-544.
[14] Gordon GE, Johnson GH, Drennon DG. The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63:12-15.
[15] Wassell RW, Ibbetson RJ. The accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions made with standard and reinforced stock trays. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65:748-757.
[16] Federick DR, Caputo A. Comparing the accuracy of reversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997;128:183-188.
[17] Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:428-434.
[18] Carlo HL, Fonseca RB, Soares CJ, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Inorganic particle analysis of dental impression elastomers. Braz Dent J. 2010;21:520-527.
[19] Ciesco JN, Malone WF, Sandrik JL, Mazur B. Comparison of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45:89-94.
[20] 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;90:365-372.
[21] Lampe I, Marton S, Hegedus C. Effect of mixing technique on shrinkage rate of one polyether and two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:590.
[22] Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Quaas S, Koch R, Rudolph H. Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2010;41:845-853.