Elastomeric Impression Materials: A Comparison of Accuracy of Multiple Pours
Dheeraj Kumar, Anand U Madihalli, K Rajeev Kumar Reddy, Namrataa Rastogi, NT Pradeep
Citation Information :
Kumar D, Madihalli AU, Reddy KR, Rastogi N, Pradeep N. Elastomeric Impression Materials: A Comparison of Accuracy of Multiple Pours. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (4):272-278.
The aim of the present study is to compare the various elastomeric impression materials in terms of accuracy and dimensional stability, with respect to obtaining multiple casts from a single elastomeric impression at various times of pours.
Materials and methods
Three master dies were prepared for the impression making, two of these were made of brass containing a central hole with undercuts. The third die simulated a conventionally prepared typodont maxillary central incisor. Three elastomeric impression materials were chosen for the study. Each impression was poured at various time periods. Casts thus obtained were evaluated under a traveling microscope to evaluate various dimensional changes.
Results
Addition silicones provided dies which were shorter in height and bigger in diameter. Polyethers provided dies which were shorter in both height and diameter. Condensation silicones showed insignificant changes from the master die at the immediate pour but deteriorated rapidly after that in subsequent pours.
Conclusion
None of the impression material showed a consistent behavior up to the fourth pour. They occasionally showed deviation from the pattern, but all these values were statistically insignificant. Polyethers showed lesser ability than both the addition silicones as well as the condensation silicones to recover from induced deformation.
Clinical significance
Addition silicones as well as the condensation silicones have better ability to recover from induced deformation when compared to polyether.
How to cite this article
Kumar D, Madihalli AU, Reddy KRK, Rastogi N, Pradeep NT. Elastomeric Impression Materials: A Comparison of Accuracy of Multiple Pours. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(4):272-278.
Basic principles in impression making. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:503-08.
A historical review of complete denture impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;91(5):1037-41.
An analysis of the development of complete denture impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46(3):242-49.
Boucher's prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients, St. Louis, Mosby, MO 1985.
A comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am; July 2007.
Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression and certain other factors affecting accuracy. J Am Dent Assoc 1958;57(1):39-48.
Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials in custom made and stock trays. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52(4):514-17.
Evaluation of accuracy and the time-dependent dimensional stability of silicone base impression materials. Ankara Univ Hekim Fak Derg 1989;16(3): 425-28.
Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials: A review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68: 728-32.
Does the nature of the definitive impression material influence the outcome of (mandibular) complete dentures? Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2005;13(3):105-08.
A survey of US prosthodontists and dental schools on the current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2005;14(4):253-62.
Clinical evaluation of polyvinyl siloxane for complete denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:537-39.
An alternative for making master impression for complete denture. J Am Dent Assoc 1997:128.
Teaching an abbreviated impression technique for complete dentures in an undergraduate dental curriculum. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:121-25.
Seven acrylic resins for custom trays and five putty wash systems compared. Oper Dent 1980; 5:162.
