A Comparative Study to Determine the Wettability and Castability of Different Elastomeric Impression Materials

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this study was to determine the wettability of different hydrophilic and hydrophobic elastomeric impression materials and the gypsum castability. Materials and methods:The wettability was evaluated by determining the contact angles of different elastomeric impression materials. The contact angle was determined by placing a drop of aqueous solution of calcium sulfate dihydrate on the flat surface of impression material and specimens were measured using a profile projector.Gypsum castability was determined by counting the number of voids formed in the die stone cast made from the impressions of a aluminum die. The voids were counted using an diopter magnifying lens. Results:Polyether, different viscosities of polyvinyl siloxane, and condensation silicone impression materials exhibited low contact angle values and least number of voids in the die stone cast when compared with polysulfide impression material. Conclusion:There was significant correlation between the contact angle and voids formed in the die stone casts when fabricating die stone casts from various elastomeric impression material impressions.Clinical significance: Accurate reproduction of prepared tooth or edentulous arch is of clinical importance in the fabrication of a fixed or removable prosthesis. Inaccuracies in the replication processes will ultimately have an adverse effect on the fit and adaptation of final restoration. The interaction is determined in part by hydrophilic and hydrophobic nature of the elastomeric impression material. Inadequate wetting of an impression results in voids in the stone casts.

Digital assessment of properties of the three different generations of dental elastomeric impression materials

“…The result of the present study showed that the mean contact angle of VPES hybrids was (69.6); polyether was (79.2) and the mean contact angle produced by the hydrophilic polyvinylsiloxane (Express) was (87), one minute after mixing. This was in agreement with several studies [ 24 , 40 ], which stated that polyether behaves more hydrophilic during the process of setting and can therefore exhibit better flow properties compared to PVS materials.…”

“…The contact angle values (the angle between the tangent of the symmetrical water droplet and the interface between the droplet and the surface of the impression material) for all specimens were calculated with the use of Auto CAD 2012 (Autodesk Inc, CA, USA) software (Fig. 4 a–c) [ 24 ]. All values gained in this experiment were relative measurements and can therefore only be used in this or similar experimental setups to compare the materials under investigation with each other.…”

Effect of propolis on the mechanophysical properties of addition silicon dental impression material

“…The hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties of the elastomeric material will dictate how well they interact with the gypsum slurry to create a void-free die. 46 This outcome was consistent with research done by Vrbova et al 31 in which scanning electron microscopy, micro computed tomography, and Light microscopy were used to assess the dimensional changes. It was discovered that elastomeric impression materials have very good resistance to the disinfectants.…”

Evaluation of the Trueness of Digital Implant Impressions According to the Implant Scan Body Orientation and Scanning Method

“…However, the traditional method has inherent errors due to the shrinkage of the impression material during polymerization and expansion of the gypsum. The dimensional stability of the impression materials is also affected by the temperature, the time taken to make a model after taking the impression, the surface wettability of the gypsum, and the disinfection process [2][3][4][5][6].…”