World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation in Linear Dimensions among Various Interocclusal Recording Materials at Various Mounting Times: An In Vitro Study

Anu Sharma, Tarun Kalra, Shailesh Jain, Khurshid Mattoo, Ramandeep Kaur

Keywords : Elastomer, Interocclusal records, Mounting, Programming articulator,Articulator

Citation Information : Sharma A, Kalra T, Jain S, Mattoo K, Kaur R. Comparative Evaluation in Linear Dimensions among Various Interocclusal Recording Materials at Various Mounting Times: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2020; 11 (6):462-467.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1776

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: This in vitro study aims to investigate the longest possible dimensionally stable interocclusal recording materials among polyvinylsiloxane (PVS), polyether, zinc oxide eugenol, and wax, over a period of 1, 24, 48, 72, and 168 hours. Materials and methods: A stainless steel metal die with known dimensions was used to fabricate 30 samples for 4 different groups (materials) with each group having 5 different subgroups (time interval). Linear dimensional changes were determined by observing the amount of change at six different intersecting fixed points on each sample. While the dimensional change was measured in the percentage using mean and standard deviations, the nature of differences between the materials was determined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). To find which specific groups were significantly different from each other, a Tukey HSD (post hoc) test was employed. The significance of differences was determined at three different levels of p value (≥0.05 = not significant, ≤0.05 = significant, and ≤0.001 = highly significant). Results: Dimensional changes were detected in bite wax (Aluwax) from as early as 1 hour, which relatively increased significantly. Among all materials, PVS (O bite) showed the least dimensional changes at all observed intervals closely followed by polyether (Ramitec) till the 3rd day of observation, differences between the two, however, were significant at 1 hour while being highly significant at remaining time intervals. Both zinc oxide eugenol (Bosworth) and bite registration wax (Aluwax) showed highly significant differences than the original dimensions and with both elastomers. Conclusion: The study concludes that for a delay of up to 7 days, polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal records show the least changes while for a delay of up to 3 days either polyvinyl siloxane or polyether-based interocclusal material can be used. Clinical significance: Polyvinyl siloxane is the material of choice for making interocclusal records presently. There should, however, be no delay in mounting the casts on the articulator irrespective of any type of material used to make an interocclusal record.

PDF Share
  1. Zarb GA, Bolender CL. Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients. 12th ed., St. Louis, Philadelphia: Mosby; 2004. pp. 243–247.
  2. Sathe S, Gufran K, Hamza MOB, et al. Success of immediate implants in anterior esthetic zone: one year prospective study. World J Dent 2018;9(6):451–456. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1579.
  3. Ghazal M, Kern M. Mounting casts on an articulator using interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100(5):408–409. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60247-4.
  4. Gounder R, Vikas BVJ. Comparison of disinfectants by immersion and spray atomization techniques on the linear dimensional stability of different interocclusal recording materials: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2016;10(1):7–15. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175684.
  5. Balthazar-Hart Y, Sandrik JL, Malone WF, et al. Accuracy and dimensional stability of four interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(6):586–591. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90416-9.
  6. Warren K, Capp N. A review of principles and techniques for making interocclusal records for mounting working casts. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3(4):341–348.
  7. Phukela SS, Malhotra P, Setya G, et al. Comparison of adaptation of acrylic resin cured by injection molded technique or microwave energy: an in vitro study. World J Dent 2020;11(1):24–29. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1690.
  8. Abdallah RM, Aref NS. An in vitro assessment of physicomechanical properties of heat-cured denture base resin disinfected by ozonized water. World J Dent 2020;11(2):146–150. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1718.
  9. Guo H, Zhou Y, Liu X, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the utilization of emergency dental services. J Dent Sci 2020;15(4):564–567. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.02.002.
  10. Freilich MA, Altieri JV, Wahle JJ. Principles for selecting interocclusal records for articulation of dentate and partially dentate casts. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(2):361–367. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90346-c.
  11. World Medical Association. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310(20):2191–2194. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
  12. Council on Dental Materials and Devices. Revised American Dental Association no. 19 for non-aqueous, elatomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94(4):733–741. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1977.0334.
  13. Chandu GS, Khan MF, Mishra SK, et al. Evaluation and comparison of resistance to compression of various interocclusal recording media: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(5):24–29.
  14. Craig RG, Peyton F. Impression Materials, Restorative Dental Materials. 5th ed., St. Louis, Philadelphia: Mosby; 1975. pp. 348–352.
  15. Shikha G, Aman A, Anil S, et al. A comparative evaluation of linear dimensional change and compressive resistance of different interocclusal recording materials – an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2013;4:32–37.
  16. Millstein PL, Hsu CC. Differential accuracy of elastomeric recording materials and associated weight change. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(4):400–403. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90103-1.
  17. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis A, Anastasiadou V, et al. An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part II: linear dimensional change and accompanying weight change. J Prosthodont 2004;13(3):150–159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04024.x.
  18. Dua P, Gupta SH, Ramachandran S, et al. Evaluation of four elastomeric interocclusal recording materials. Med J Armed Forces India 2007;63(3):237–240. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-1237(07) 80143-2.
  19. Anup G, Ahila SC, Vasanthakumar M. Evaluation of dimensional stability, accuracy and surface hardness of interocclusal recording materials at various time intervals: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011;11(1):26–31. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-011- 0054-0.
  20. Arya S, Nagar P. Comparative evaluation of the accuracy and dimensional stability of three interocclusal recording materials - an in vitro study. IJARESM 2016;4(1):4–9.
  21. Gupta S, Arora A, Sharma A, et al. Comparative evaluation of linear dimensional change and compressive resistance of different interocclusal recording materials - an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2013;5:32–37.
  22. Müller J, Götz G, Hörz W, et al. Study of the accuracy of different recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(1):41–46. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90263-c.
  23. Tejo SK, Kumar AG, Kattimani VS, et al. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials - an in-vitro multi-centre study. Head Face Med 2012;8(1):27. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-8-27.
  24. Gurav SV, Khanna TS, Nandeeshwar DB. Comparison of the accuracy and dimensional stability of interocclusal recording materials - an in vitro study. Int J Sci Res Publ 2015;5:2250–3153.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.