For dental impression of a prepared tooth, the goal is a void-free negative representation from which an accurate cast of a tooth and its surrounding tissue can be reproduced. This in-vitro study assessed and compared the reproduction accuracies of surface detail obtained with three different dental elastomeric impression materials: vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), vinyl polyether silicone (VPES), and polyether (PE). A stainless-steel model with two abutments was used, with impressions taken 10 times for each material, for 20 abutment impressions per group, using a two-phase, one-step technique (heavy body/light body). The impressions were removed and assessed for numbers of enclosed voids and open voids visible on the surface. The defect frequency was 95% for impressions with the VPS and VPES materials, and 30% for the PE material. No significant differences were seen for number of impressions with defects for VPS versus VPES. Significant differences were seen for VPS and VPES versus the PE material (P <.05). No significant differences were seen for the defect type distributions across these three impression materials. The PE impression material showed better accuracy for reproduction of surface detail of these dental impressions compared to the VPS and VPES impression materials.

Comparative surface detail reproduction for elastomeric impression materials: Study on reproducibility performance

Bernardi S.;
2021

Abstract

For dental impression of a prepared tooth, the goal is a void-free negative representation from which an accurate cast of a tooth and its surrounding tissue can be reproduced. This in-vitro study assessed and compared the reproduction accuracies of surface detail obtained with three different dental elastomeric impression materials: vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), vinyl polyether silicone (VPES), and polyether (PE). A stainless-steel model with two abutments was used, with impressions taken 10 times for each material, for 20 abutment impressions per group, using a two-phase, one-step technique (heavy body/light body). The impressions were removed and assessed for numbers of enclosed voids and open voids visible on the surface. The defect frequency was 95% for impressions with the VPS and VPES materials, and 30% for the PE material. No significant differences were seen for number of impressions with defects for VPS versus VPES. Significant differences were seen for VPS and VPES versus the PE material (P <.05). No significant differences were seen for the defect type distributions across these three impression materials. The PE impression material showed better accuracy for reproduction of surface detail of these dental impressions compared to the VPS and VPES impression materials.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Varvara et al. JBRHA 2021 35_161-169 (1).pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 670.8 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
670.8 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/165119
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact