The effect of surface moisture on detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions

Monophase and dual-viscosity impression techniques are available with little knowledge of which one might render better quality under wet and dry surface conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether type of material, viscosity selection, and presence of moisture affect detail repro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2003-10, Vol.90 (4), p.354-364
Main Authors: Johnson, Glen H, Lepe, Xavier, Aw, Tar Chee
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis of Variance
Dental Impression Materials - chemistry
Dentistry
Elastomers - chemistry
Ethers - chemistry
Humans
Materials Testing
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Polyvinyls - chemistry
Resins, Synthetic - chemistry
Silicone Elastomers - chemistry
Silicones
Siloxanes - chemistry
Surface Properties
Viscosity
Water - chemistry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Monophase and dual-viscosity impression techniques are available with little knowledge of which one might render better quality under wet and dry surface conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether type of material, viscosity selection, and presence of moisture affect detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. Single-viscosity systems were polyether (Impregum Penta) and vinyl polysiloxanes (President MonoBody, Extrude MPV, and Aquasil). Dual-viscosity systems included polyether (Impregum Penta/Permadyne Garant) and vinyl polysiloxanes (Dimension Penta H/Dimension Garant L, Extrude Extra/Extrude Wash, and Aquasil/Aquasil LV). Impressions were made of a surface analyzer calibration standard possessing a uniform “saw-tooth” pattern with a mean roughness (Ra) of 2.87 μm, which was one fourth of the peak-to-valley height. Each of the 8 impression groups was subjected to dry (control) and wet conditions. The wet condition consisted of 3 mL of distilled water applied to the surface of the standard but allowed to escape during the procedure. Eighty impressions were made, 5 for each test group. After setting, the surface of each impression was scanned at 5 locations using a Surfanalyzer 4000. A 3-factor ANOVA and Student-Newman-Kuels test were used to analyze the data (α=.05). There were significant differences between polyether and vinyl polysiloxane materials, dual and monophase techniques, and the 2 surface conditions ( P
ISSN:0022-3913
1097-6841
DOI:10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00429-3