Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry.

The purpose of this article is to review impression materials used for fabricating fixed restorations in dentistry. Their compositions, properties, advantages, and disadvantages are presented and compared. How these properties influence clinical decisions is also described. This review helps the clinician choose which material is more suitable for a specific case. A broad search of the published literature was performed using Medline to identify pertinent current articles. Textbooks, the Internet, and manufacturers' literature were also used to supplement this information. It is limited to impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. The review gives basic knowledge of ideal impression material properties and discusses traditional and, primarily, more recently developed products, such as polyethers, poly(vinyl siloxane), polysulfides, and condensation silicone materials. Clear advantages and disadvantages for these impression materials are provided along with the role that compositional variations have on the outcome of the impression. This should enable clinicians and technicians to easily identify the important physical properties of each type of impression material and their primary clinical indications.

Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure.

Statement of problem A major limitation of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials is their hydrophobicity. There are 2 aspects to this problem, the wettability of the polymerized impression by dental gypsum materials and the ability of the unpolymerized material to wet intraoral tissues. To address this problem, manufacturers have added surfactants and labeled the new products as hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane . Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to compare dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of 2 hydrophilic VPS impression materials, when used under dry, moist, and wet conditions. Material and methods A total of 102 impressions were made of stainless steel metal dies similar to those described in American Dental Association (ADA) specification 19. The dies had 2 vertical and 3 horizontal lines inscribed on their superior surfaces. Impressions were made under dry, moist, and wet conditions. Dimensional accuracy was measured by comparing the average length of the middle horizontal line in each impression to the same line on the metal die, by use of a measuring microscope with an accuracy of 0.001 mm. A 2-way analysis of variance and least significant difference post hoc test were used to compare mean dimensional changes ( α=.05). Surface detail reproduction was evaluated in 2 ways: (1) by use of criteria similar to ADA specification 19 for detail reproduction, continuous replication of at least 2 of the 3 horizontal lines, and (2) by use of a method developed for this study that categorized the impressions as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on their surface characteristics: presence of pits, voids, or roughness. Pearson χ 2 (α=.05) was used to compare detail reproduction results. Results Conditions (dry, moist, and wet) did not cause significant adverse effects on the dimensional accuracy of either material. The mean dimensional change and SD were 0.005% ± 0.002% or less. With both surface detail analyses, dry, moist, and wet conditions had a significant effect on the detail reproduction of both materials ( P Conclusions Dimensional accuracy of both materials tested was well within ADA standards. Best surface detail results were obtained only under dry conditions for both materials.

Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions

Well-fitting indirect restorations can only be made if there are accurate models of the oral tissues available, made from high quality impressions Waiting for an impression to set may be more stressful for the dentist than the patient Should the impression need to be repeated there is the embarrassment of having to explain this to the patient, the cost implications of material and time wasted and the aggravation of running late for the next appointment Yet, if a 'Nelsonian' eye is turned to a defective impression we can only expect a substandard restoration in return

/pdf/crowns-and-other-extra-coronal-restorations-impression-43nlo9n3i5.pdf

Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to survey members of The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) to evaluate current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics in the United States. In addition, those methods were compared with methods and materials taught in U.S. dental schools via a second survey sent to the chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments.



Materials and Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was mailed to all 1762 active ACP members in the United States in 2003. A slightly modified questionnaire was also distributed to chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments in the 54 U.S. dental schools. Data analysis was performed via frequency distribution and chi-square statistics.



Results: Nine hundred and forty-five questionnaires were returned by members of the ACP (54% return rate) and 42 questionnaires were returned by the U.S. dental schools (78% return rate). The majority of the reporting prosthodontists (88%) and dental schools (98%) use a border-molded custom tray for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. The most popular material for border molding was plastic modeling compound (67% of reporting ACP members, and 95% of the responding dental schools). Variability of the materials used for final impressions was observed, with the most popular materials being polyvinylsiloxane for the ACP members (36%) and polysulfide for the dental schools (64%). Statistically significant differences were found in the materials used for border molding by prosthodontists based on the time elapsed since completion of prosthodontic training. No differences were found in the materials used for impression of edentulous arches based on years of experience. Geographic location did not influence the materials and methods used by prosthodontists for complete denture final impressions.



Conclusions: There was variability of the materials and techniques used for final impressions by ACP members and dental schools; however, overall there was an agreement on the materials and techniques used by prosthodontists and dental schools. Distinct trends for increasing use of polyvinylsiloxane and polyether for border molding procedures and impressions of edentulous arches were observed both in members of the ACP and in the U.S. dental schools.

A survey of U.S. prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics.

Silicone impression materials, long noted for their poor wettability, have typically demonstrated contact angles with water greater than 90 degrees. This study compared the wettability of a new hydrophilic addition silicone with that of other impression materials. Specimens from various viscosities of polyether, polysulfide, hydrophobic addition silicone, and hydrophilic addition silicone were formed against a smooth surface. The advancing contact angle of a saturated aqueous solution of CaSO4 on the impression materials was measured after 1 minute. Mean contact angles were calculated and results were analyzed by ANOVA and a multiple comparison of means procedure. Differences between pairs of contact angle means were found to be statistically significant except for the polyether-hydrophilic addition silicone pair. The wettability of the hydrophilic addition silicone impression material was found to be not significantly different from that of a polyether impression material.

Wettability of a hydrophilic addition silicone impression material.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

D.H. Pratten

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Wettability of a hydrophilic addition silicone impression material.