Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 339-345
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735793
Original Article

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

Pongsakorn Apinsathanon 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Bishwa Prakash Bhattarai 
2   Walailak University International College of Dentistry, Phaya Thai, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Suphachai Suphangul 
3   Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Natthamet Wongsirichat 
2   Walailak University International College of Dentistry, Phaya Thai, Bangkok, Thailand
,
Napapa Aimjirakul 
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand (grant number 636-2563).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials.

Materials and Methods The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE.

Conclusion Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.

Keywords

penetration ability - tensile strength - elastomeric impression materials - gingival sulcus width - moist environment - various impression materials


Publication History

Article published online:
01 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont 2011; 20 (02) 153-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48 (02) vi-vii , 445–470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wassell RW, Barker D, Walls AW. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J 2002; 192 (12) 679-684 , 687–690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2017; 61 (04) 779-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's Restorative Dental Materials - E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; Philadelphia, PA: 2012: 19103-2899
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental Materials - E-Book: Foundations and Applications. Elsevier Health Sciences; St. Louis, Missouri: 2015: 63043
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Guler U, Budak Y, Ruh E, Ocal Y, Canay S, Akyon Y. Effect of mixing techniques on bacterial attachment and disinfection time of polyether impression material. Eur J Dent 2013; 7 (Suppl. 01) S054-S059
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, Punhagui MF. et al. Influence of chloramine-T disinfection on elastomeric impression stability. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (02) 232-236
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Enkling N, Bayer S, Jöhren P, Mericske-Stern R. Vinylsiloxanether: a new impression material. Clinical study of implant impressions with vinylsiloxanether versus polyether materials. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14 (01) 144-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rubel BS. Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51 (03) 629-642 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103 (04) 228-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 37:2017 rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic – determination of tensile stress-strain properties. 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 ASTM International. ASTM D412-06a Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension. 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 23529:2016 rubber – general procedures for preparing and conditioning test pieces for physical test methods. 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68 (05) 728-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett S. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Vol 1. Quintessence Publishing Company; ; Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc 411 N Raddant Rd Batavia , IL 60510 USA; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Craig R, Powers J. Restorative Dental Materials. 11th ed.. St. Louis. Elsevier; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Rupp F, Axmann D, Jacobi A, Groten M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Hydrophilicity of elastomeric non-aqueous impression materials during setting. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (02) 94-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Van Krevelen DW, Te Nijenhuis K. Properties of Polymers: Their Correlation with Chemical Structure; Their Numerical Estimation and Prediction from Additive Group Contributions. Elsevier; ; Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX28DP, UK; 2009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Baer CJ. Identium® Vinylsiloxanether® . Inside Dentistry 2011;7(06). Available at https://www.kettenbach-dental.de/fileadmin/produkte/Identium/Identium_Light/Download/Anwenderberichte/Christopher_J._Baer__DMD.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Laufer B-Z, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76 (05) 466-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ramadan FA. The linear effectiveness of dental tissue displacement materials (Master's thesis). St Louis: St Louis University Dental School; 1968: 10-17
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Langer Y, Cardash HS. The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24 (09) 629-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Prasanna GS, Reddy K, Kumar RK, Shivaprakash S. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (02) 217-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16 (04) 385-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chauhan D, Singh D, Jadhav D, Swarup S, Ahuja S, Soni S. Assessment of accuracy of different materials used in impressions for fixed partial dentures. Eur J Molecular & Clin Med 2021; 7 (09) 3072-3076
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Varvara G, Sinjari B, Bernardi S. et al. Comparative surface detail reproduction for elastomeric impression materials: study on reproducibility performance. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2021; 35 (01) 161-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Materials CoD, Devices. Revised American Dental Association specification No. 19 for non-aqueous, elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977; 94 (04) 733-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Huettig F, Chekhani U, Klink A, Said F, Rupp F. A modified shark-fin test simulating the single-step/double-mix technique: a comparison of three groups of elastomers. Dent Mater J 2018; 37 (03) 414-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Aimjirakul N. inventor; Department of Intellectual Property, Bangkok, Thailand, assignee. Patent 75862; 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar