The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2011 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Analysis of Dimensional Precision of Different Silicone Impression Materials

Bader K Al-Zarea, Mohamed G Sughaireen

Citation Information : Al-Zarea BK, Sughaireen MG. Comparative Analysis of Dimensional Precision of Different Silicone Impression Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (3):208-215.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1036

Published Online: 01-02-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).



To investigate the accuracy of four commercial types of additional silicone impression materials (AFFINIS®, Virtual®, Relay 2002 CD® and Silagum®).

Materials and methods

The accuracy of impression material was measured indirectly by measuring three dimensions on stone cast poured from impressions of a stainless steel master model. The three dimensions on stone cast were measured at 1 hour, 2 days, 1 and 2 weeks after making the impression. Two impression techniques were used in the current study. The two-step impression technique was used for AFFINIS® and Virtual®, while single-step technique was used for Relay 2002 CD® and Silagum® materials. Twenty impressions were made of the master cast at four different periods for each of the tested four materials with a total of 320 impressions. Two vertical dimensions and one horizontal dimension were measured on master cast using optical microscope. Statistical analysis was run to compare the mean measurements for tested casts from each impression and time interval with the master cast.


No statistical significant differences were found (p > 0.05) in the accuracy of tested materials. There was no significant difference of master cast and impression cast means over time. Additionally, impression technique could be correlated with accuracy.


The tested additional silicones showed accuracy over time and they could be delayed up to 4 weeks duration without any significant changes in its dimensional stability. Silagum® impression material was the most accurate followed by Relay 2002 CD®, Virtual® and AFFINIS®.

Clinical significance

Silagum® impression material is most accurate followed by Relay 2002 CD®, Virtual® and AFFINIS®.

How to cite this article

Al-Zarea BK, Sughaireen MG. Comparative Analysis of Dimensional Precision of Different Silicone Impression Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12(3):208-215.

PDF Share
  1. Skinner's Science of Dental Materials (9th ed). Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co 1991:102.
  2. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:484-90.
  3. Clinically oriented evaluation of the accuracy of commonly used impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:4-8.
  4. Long term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 1983;10: 325-33.
  5. Comparative elasticity tests for elastomeric (non putty) impression materials. Aust Dent J 1992;37:346-52.
  6. An evaluation of the time-dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:120-25.
  7. Hydrophilic polyvinyl siloxane impression materials dimensional accuracy, wettability and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:240-48.
  8. Polyether, polysulfides, and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329.
  9. Comparing the accuracy of reversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials. J Am Den Assoc 1997;128:183-88.
  10. Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one step putty wash impression technique. J Prosthodont 1998;7:250-55.
  11. Evaluation of an automatic mixing system for an addition silicone impression material. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;110:213-15.
  12. Distortion analysis of stone casts made from impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:794-802.
  13. Thermal expansion of additional polymerization (Type II) silicone impression materials. Aust Dent J 1982;27:377-81.
  14. The effect of temperature on the dimensional stability of polyvinyl siloxane and polyether impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:626-31.
  15. A review of properties of rubber impression materials. Mich Dent Assoc J 1977;59:254-61.
  16. Addition curing silicone rubber impression materials. Br Dent J 1978;145:17-20.
  17. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinyl siloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:19-28.
  18. In vitro study on the dimensional accuracy of selected materials for monophase elastic impression making. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:168-74.
  19. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: Influence of tray material, impression material and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-103.
  20. Dimensional accuracy and bond strength of addition silicones. Am J Dent 1992;5:223-25.
  21. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: A review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:728-32.
  22. The effect of the type and the technique used for impression making on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. Egyptian Dent J 1995;41:1409-16.
  23. Effect of impression materials and techniques on the marginal fit of metal castings. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:1-6.
  24. Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one- and two- step techniques with the use of putty/ wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:535-41.
  25. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:583-89.
  26. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:357-61.
  27. Effect of storage and ambient humidity on accuracy of dental elastomeric impression material. Quintessence Int 1988;19:827-32.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.