CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2014; 3(01): 17-21
DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.126204
Original Article

The influence of different mixing methods on the dimensional stability and surface detail reproduction of two different brands of irreversible hydrocolloids

Ahmet Kursad Culhaoglu
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey
Ali Zaimoglu
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey
Evrim Dogan
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey
Serhat Emre Ozkir
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
› Author Affiliations


Purpose: Irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials are some of the most common impression materials in dentistry. Preparation of alginate is critical for dental appliance fabricated upon the cast made directly from the impression. This study compared the effect of two mixing methods i.e. hand mixing or device mixing on the physical properties of two different brands of irreversible hydrocolloid. Materials and Methods: Two alginate impression materials: Cavex Tulip (Tulip, Cavex Holland BV, Haarlem, Holland) and Hydrogum Soft (Zhermack, Rovigo, Italy), were mixed according to manufacturers instroductions with two mixing methods. Mixing was performed at room temperature using tap water. The material was allowed to set in a water bath at 35°C (±1°C), simulating intra-oral setting conditions. For each tested material, nine standardized samples were used. The first method was hand mixing; the other method was with a device. Detail reproduction and dimensional changes of impressions were compared. One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the dimensional differences between the four groups. Results: The device mixed speciemens showed better surface detail than hand-mixed samples. Cavex alginate demonstrated better surface detail than Hydrogum. Cavex Tulip alginate showed better dimensional stability than Hydrogum Soft in both hand-mixed and device-mixed samples. Furthermore, all device mixed samples were better than hand-mixed in terms of dimensional stability. A two-way analysis of variance and Fisher′s protected least significant difference test at the 0.05 level of significance were used to analyze the data. Conclusion: Of the two mixing methods, the vacuum mixer had the best performance overall in reducing the number, percent and volume of porosities in the mixed alginate.

Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2014. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (

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

  • References

  • 1 al-Omari WM, Jones JC, Wood DJ. The effect of disinfecting alginate and addition cured silicone rubber impression materials on the physical properties of impressions and resultant casts. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1998;6:103-10.
  • 2 Baxter RT, Lawson NC, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. Evaluation of outgassing, tear strength, and detail reproduction in alginate substitute materials. Oper Dent 2012;37:540-7.
  • 3 Boden J, Likeman P, Clark R. Some effects of disinfecting solutions on the properties of alginate impression material and dental stone. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2001;9:131-5.
  • 4 Hamilton MJ, Vandewalle KS, Roberts HW, Hamilton GJ, Lien W. Microtomographic porosity determination in alginate mixed with various methods. J Prosthodont 2010;19:478-81.
  • 5 Wandrekar S, Juszczyk AS, Clark RK, Radford DR. Dimensional stability of newer alginate impression materials over seven days. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2010;18:163-70.
  • 6 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;90:365-72.
  • 7 Rios MP, Morgano SM, Stein RS, Rose L. Effects of chemical disinfectant solutions on the stability and accuracy of the dental impression complex. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:356-62.
  • 8 Koski RE. Comparative study of selected alginate materials and devices. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94:713-6.
  • 9 Soh G, Chong YH. Relationship of viscosity to porosities in automixed elastomeric impressions. Clin Mater 1991;7:23-6.
  • 10 Chong YH, Soh G, Lim KC, Teo CS. Porosities in five automixed addition silicone elastomers. Oper Dent 1991;16:96-100.
  • 11 Inoue K, Song YX, Kamiunten O, Oku J, Terao T, Fujii K. Effect of mixing method on rheological properties of alginate impression materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:615-9.
  • 12 Frey G, Lu H, Powers J. Effect of mixing methods on mechanical properties of alginate impression materials. J Prosthodont 2005;14:221-5.
  • 13 Drecsen K, Kellens A, Wevers M, Pushpike JT, Willems G. The influence of mixing methods and disinfectant on the pysical properties of alginate impression materials. Eur J Orthod 2012;10:1-7.