Correlation of Impression Removal Force with Elastomeric Impression Material Rigidity and Hardness

Walker, Mary P.; Alderman, Nick; Petrie, Cynthia S.; Melander, Jennifer R.; McGuire, Jacob D.

doi:10.1111/jopr.12011

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the fact that the material is harder does not mean it will be more difficult to handle or remove from the oral cavity. 23,24 Therefore, the null hypothesis of this study was rejected because there was no statistically significant difference between the mechanical tests, except for the elastic recovery test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Influence of different fillers on the properties of an experimental vinyl polysiloxane

Meincke

Ogliari

2016

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of the incorporation of different fillers on an experimental vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) at two different concentrations, 20% and 40%. Different fillers were added to an experimental VPS. The study was developed in two stages: (i) incorporation of fillers in different concentrations: (a) 20 wt% fillers, and (b) 40 wt%. The fillers were added to experimental VPS and mixed with a speed mixer; (ii) characterization of experimental VPS; after the base paste and catalyst paste were mixed, the experimental VPS was used to make specimens specifically for each test, which were stored at 23°C for 24 hours. The tests were designed according to the specific standardization for the analysis of tensile strength, detail reproduction, Shore A hardness, and elastic recovery. For analysis of filler size pattern, scanning electron microscopy at 1500× magnification was used. The aerosil OX-50 40% (AE), and pure aluminum hydroxide 40% (PAH) groups presented the highest tensile strength and Shore A hardness values. However, those were the only groups that did not present continuous detail reproduction of an intersection of 20 μm line. The elastic recovery was not statistically significant. The undesirable characteristics of VPS (lowest Shore A hardness and tensile strength) were observed when it was added to the composition of acrylic polymer (AP) and fiberglass (FG) in both concentrations, 20% and 40%. In groups AE and PAH, agglomerates of nanofillers were shown in SEM micrography, while the other groups presented different shapes and fillers sizes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Influence of different fillers on the properties of an experimental vinyl polysiloxane

Meincke

Ogliari

2016

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Walker at al. [ 20 ] recently suggested that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty. A performing material should display high yield strength and adequate elastic recovery and should require the expenditure of large amounts of energy to initiate and propagate tearing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies [ 9 , 14 , 15 , 20 , 22 – 24 ] on tear strength have been carried out so far; however, standardized test methods have not been established. As a result, comparison between different impression materials using the available literature data still appears quite difficult [ 15 , 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical Properties of Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Comparison

Angelis

Augusti

et al. 2015

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Although new elastomeric impression materials have been introduced into the market, there are still insufficient data about their mechanical features. The tensile properties of 17 hydrophilic impression materials with different consistencies were compared. Materials and Methods. 12 vinylpolysiloxane, 2 polyether, and 3 hybrid vinylpolyether silicone-based impression materials were tested. For each material, 10 dumbbell-shaped specimens were fabricated (n = 10), according to the ISO 37:2005 specifications, and loaded in tension until failure. Mean values for tensile strength, yield strength, strain at break, and strain at yield point were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). Results. Vinylpolysiloxanes consistently showed higher tensile strength values than polyethers. Heavy-body materials showed higher tensile strength than the light bodies from the same manufacturer. Among the light bodies, the highest yield strength was achieved by the hybrid vinylpolyether silicone (2.70 MPa). Polyethers showed the lowest tensile (1.44 MPa) and yield (0.94 MPa) strengths, regardless of the viscosity. Conclusion. The choice of an impression material should be based on the specific physical behavior of the elastomer. The light-body vinylpolyether silicone showed high tensile strength, yield strength, and adequate strain at yield/brake; those features might help to reduce tearing phenomena in the thin interproximal and crevicular areas.

show abstract

“…The latter is a hybrid material from PE and PVS, and also called "vinyl polyether silicone" 2) . It was introduced to the market in 2010 and was examined in vitro towards a secure clinical application [3][4][5][6] , but not regarding basic physico-chemical characteristics, such as wettability or flowability, by now. From the materials point of view, besides hydrophilicity 7) , flow or rheological properties play a decisive role for copying finest surface details of prepared teeth and gingival sulcus 8,9) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A modified shark-fin test simulating the single-step/double-mix technique: A comparison of three groups of elastomers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The shark-fin test was modified to convey the clinical application of a single-step/double-mix technique assessing the behavior of two viscosities applied at one point in time. A medium and light body polyether (PE), a medium and light body polyvinylsiloxane (PVS), and a medium as well as heavy and light body vinyl polyether silicone (PVXE) impression material were analyzed solely, and in a layered mixture of 1:1 and 3:1 at working times of 50, 80, and 120 s. The fin heights were measured with a digital ruler. The wettability was measured 50 and 80 s after mixing by drop shape analysis. The results showed a synergistic effect of the medium and light body PE. This was not observed in PVXE and PVS. Interestingly, PVXE showed an antagonistic flow behavior in 3:1 mixture with medium body. PVXE was more hydrophilic than PE and PVS. Future rheological studies should clarify the detected flow effects.

show abstract

Correlation of Impression Removal Force with Elastomeric Impression Material Rigidity and Hardness

Abstract: The evidence suggests that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty.

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

Influence of different fillers on the properties of an experimental vinyl polysiloxane

Influence of different fillers on the properties of an experimental vinyl polysiloxane

Mechanical Properties of Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Comparison

A modified shark-fin test simulating the single-step/double-mix technique: A comparison of three groups of elastomers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About