Citation Information :
Barakat MM, Khan NS, Araby YA, Zakaria WM. Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Tear Strength of Vinyl Siloxanether and Polyether Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2020; 11 (6):457-461.
Aim of the study: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the tear strength and dimensional accuracy of vinyl siloxanether and polyether impression material.
Materials and methods: According to the ADA specification no. 19, a metal mold was prepared for elastomeric impression materials. A total of 28 specimens were made which were divided equally into 2 groups. The mold was positioned on the block and vinyl siloxanether, and polyether impression materials were syringed into the mold and immediately covered with a polyethylene sheet followed by a flat glass plate. The specimen-forming assembly was placed immediately in a water bath 32°C ± 2°C to simulate the oral temperature and left for double the setting time. When set, the impressions were separated from the test block, and any flash was carefully removed. Evaluation of the dimensional accuracy was made after 24 hours of making an impression. The tear strength test was conducted according to the ASTM 1004 procedure with a 90° angle-shaped specimens free of nicks with a thickness of 1.8 mm. Twenty-eight specimens were made and divided equally into two groups. Vinyl siloxanether and polyether impression materials were manipulated and injected into the mold and immediately covered with a polyethylene sheet followed by a flat glass plate. After setting, the specimens were removed from the mold, and any flash was carefully removed by using a sharp blade. Samples were stretched at a constant rate of 50 cm/minute in the Universal testing machine. The tear strength was calculated using the equation T = F/D kg/cm2Results: Polyether exhibited less dimensional changes and higher tear strength value than vinyl siloxanether, but there were no statistically significant differences between the two impression materials.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, both polyether and vinyl siloxanether exhibited acceptable dimensional accuracy and tear strength.
Clinical significance: Although further studies are recommended to evaluate the clinical performance, patient acceptance and cytotoxicity of the vinyl siloxanether as an impression material, results of this study showed that the mechanical properties of the material are comparable to those of polyether, suggesting their clinical success as an impression material during construction of different prosthetic restorations.
Hondrum SO. Tear and energy properties of three impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(6):517–552.
Lepe X, Johnson G, Berg J, et al. Wettability, imbibition, and mass change of disinfected low-viscosity impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(3):268–276. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128757.
Chen S, Liang W, Chen F. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials. J Dent 2004;32(8):603–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.04.002.
Petrie C, Walker M, O'Mahony A, et al. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(4):365–372. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03) 00515-8.
Grundke K, Michel S, Knispel G, et al. Wettability of silicone and polyether impression materials: characterization by surface tension and contact angle measurements. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 2008;317(1-3):598–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2007.11.046.
Mehta D, Shetty R, Bhandari G. Vinyl polysiloxane ether: a breakthrough in elastomeric impression material. World J Dent 2014;5(2):134–137. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1274.
Aguilar M, Elias A, Vizcarrondo C, et al. Analysis of three-dimensional distortion of two impression materials in the transfer of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(4):202–209. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60032-7.
Chowdhary R, Reddy S, Prasad K, et al. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants. Niger J Clin Pract 2013;16(3):279. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.113447.
Stober T, Johnson G, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(4):228–239. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60035-2.
American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association. Specification No. 19: Dental elastomeric impression materials. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2004.
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM Designation D 1004 – Standard test methods for rubber materials – determination of tear strength – Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 8. Philadelphia: 1983.
Nassar U, Chow A. Surface detail reproduction and effect of disinfectant and long-term storage on the dimensional stability of a novel vinyl polyether silicone impression material. J Prosthodont 2014;24(6):494–498. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12244.
Reddy S, Prasad K, Vakil H, et al. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants. Niger J Clin Pract 2013;16(3):279–284. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.113447.
Techkouhie AH, Elie N, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodontics 2011;20(2):153–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x.
German M, Carrick T, McCabe J. Surface detail reproduction of elastomeric impression materials related to rheological properties. Dent Mater 2008;24(7):951–956. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.010.
Hamed AA, Safia H, Gharabawy EI, et al. Laboratory evaluation of dimensional changes of different elastomeric impression materials using 3D laser scanner. Int J Sci Res 2016;5(7):2064–2070.
Pandey P, Mantri S, Bhasin A, et al. Mechanical properties of a new vinyl polyether silicone in comparison to vinyl polysiloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10(2):203–207.
Lee EA. Impression material selection in contemporary fixed prosthodontics: Technique, rationale, and indications. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26(11):780–789.
Smith D, Williams D. Biocompatibility of dental materials, Vol. III, Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press; 1982.
Ciapetti G, Granchi D, Stea S, et al. Cytotoxicity testing of materials with limitedin vivo exposure is affected by the duration of cell-material contact. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;42(4):485–490. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19981215)42:4<485::AID-JBM2>3.0.CO;2-7.
Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(2):151–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.016.
Marshak B, Cardash H, Ben-Ur Z. Incidence of impression material found in the gingival sulcus after impression procedure for fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57(3):306–308. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90303-9.
Pandey A, Mehtra A. Comparative study of dimensional stability and accuracy of various elastomeric materials. J Dent Med Sci 2014; 13(3 Ver. V.):40–45.