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

Comparative evaluation of flow profile of commercially available vinyl polysiloxane impression materials - An in-vitro study

Background

Flow characteristics of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials are important determinants in the selection of impression materials for the fabrication of accurate indirect restorations.

Aims

: The purpose of this study was to determine the flow of three commercially available VPS impression materials at different time intervals using a shark fin device (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany).

Study Setting and Design

This in-vitro study was carried out at the prosthodontics department of a dental institution.

Methods and Material

The height of the shark fin produced by each impression material determined the rate of flow.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey's test (p-0.05).

Results

: Shark fin height of group A VPS impression material was significantly higher at 30 and 120 seconds compared to group B and group C VPS impression materials. Shark fin height produced by group B VPS impression materials at 60 and 90 seconds was significantly higher than the group C VPS impression material but non-significant compared to group A. At 120 seconds, there was no significant difference in the shark fin heights of all the tested materials.

Conclusion

All the materials exhibited adequate flow characteristics within clinically acceptable limits.

Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials

Objectives  The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials.

Materials and Methods  The models were constructed for penetration ability test by simulated gingival sulcus width and moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test were performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results  PE showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by VSE and PVS, respectively. PVS was significantly higher in tensile strength than VSE and PE, while VSE was significantly higher than PE.

Conclusion  Penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was depended on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. PE presented the best penetration ability, while the novel PVS showed highest tensile strength.

Flowability, Tear Strength, and Hydrophilicity of Current Elastomers for Dental Impressions

This study investigates 2 polyethers (PE), 2 polyvinylsiloxanethers (VXSE), and 10 polyvinylsiloxanes (PVS), seven of which had a corresponding light-body consistency and seven of which had a corresponding heavy-body consistency. Each light-body elastomer underwent a flowability test using the shark fin method 20, 50, and 80 s after mixing. The tear strength test DIN 53504 was used after setting the time (T0). Next, 24 h later (T1), hydrophilicity testing was used with static contact angles in water drops during polymerization (20, 50, and 80 s, as well as after 10 min). The heavy-body elastomers underwent shark fin testing with a corresponding light-body material at 50 and 80 s after mixing. The results of light-body testing were combined in a score to describe their performance. The highest differences were detected within flowability in shark fin heights between PE and a PVS (means of 15.89 and 6.85 mm) within the maximum tear strengths at T0 between a PVS and PE (3.72 and 0.75 MPa), as well as within hydrophilicity during setting between VXSE and a PVS (15.09° and 75.5°). The results indicate that VSXE and novel PVS materials can significantly compensate shortcomings in PE towards tear strength and hydrophilicity, but not flowability.

Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The definitive impression for a single-unit crown involves many material and technique factors that may affect the success of the crown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to determine whether impression technique (tray selection), impression material, or tissue displacement technique are associated with the clinical acceptability of the crown (CAC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network documented details of the preparation, impression, and delivery of 3730 consecutive single-unit crowns. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between impression techniques and materials and the CAC and to assess associations between the presence of a subgingival margin with the displacement technique and the outcome variables CAC and number of impressions required.

RESULTS

Of the 3730 crowns, 3589 (96.2%) were deemed clinically acceptable. A significant difference in the CAC was found with different impression techniques (P<.001) and different impression materials (P<.001). The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 95.8% for dual-arch trays, 95.2% for quadrant trays, and 94.0% for complete-arch impression trays. Although no statistically significant difference was found in the CAC produced with dual-arch trays without both mesial and distal contacts, crowns fabricated under these conditions were less likely to achieve excellent occlusion. The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 97.0% for polyether impressions, 95.5% for polyvinyl siloxane impressions, and 90.5% for other impression materials. Accounting for the location of the margin, the use of a dual-cord displacement technique was significantly associated with lower rates of requiring more than 1 impression (P=.015, odds ratio=1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-arch trays produced clinically acceptable crowns; however, if the prepared tooth was unbounded, the occlusal fit was more likely to have been compromised. Digital scans produced a slightly higher rate of CAC than conventional impression materials. The use of a dual-cord technique was associated with a decreased need to remake impressions when the margins were subgingival.