Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT
Statement of problem. Impression making is a challenging clinical procedure for both patients and
dentists.
Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to compare a recently introduced fast-setting
polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material with heavy body/light body (HB/LB) combination
(Imprint 4; 3M ESPE) (experimental group) with a conventional PVS impression material with HB/
LB combination (Imprint 3; 3M ESPE) (control group), using the 1-step 2-viscosity impression
technique.
Material and methods. Two denitive impressions (1 of each material combination) were made of
20 crown preparations from 20 participants. The quality of impressions was rated by 3 evaluators
(clinical evaluator, clinical operator, and dental technician) and by the patients for the level of
comfort and taste of the impression materials. The order in which the 2 impressions were made
with each material combination was randomized for each crown preparation. A paired t test for
paired means and McNemar test for paired proportions were used for statistical comparisons
(a=.05).
Results. Participants rated the comfort of the impression making with the experimental group
signicantly higher than that with the control group (P=.001). No signicant differences were found
in participants rating for the taste of the impression materials (P=.46). The viscosity for tray material
was rated as signicantly better for the control group by the clinical operator (P=.004). The readability of the impression and visibility around the nish line were rated as signicantly better for the
experimental group than for the control group (P<.001). Except for the ease of removal of the stone
(RS), the ratings for the 2 groups by the dental technician were similar. The ease of RS was rated as
signicantly better for the experimental group (P<.001). Eleven dies from the control and 9 from the
experimental group were selected for fabrication of the denitive crowns (P=.65).
Conclusion. Within the limitations of this clinical study, no signicant differences were found
in the overall clinical performance of the experimental and the control groups. Impressions
made with both materials were clinically acceptable. Participants rated the comfort provided by
the experimental group signicantly better than that of the control group. (J Prosthet Dent
2015;-:---)
Volume
Issue
Clinical Implications
Both fast-setting (experimental group) and
conventional-setting (control group) PVS impression
materials may be used with high success for single
crowns. Fast-setting impression materials may be
preferred for a limited number of crowns over
conventional-setting materials for improved patient
comfort.
9,10
Material Type
Lot No.
511512
Imprint 4 Light
511295
Imprint 3 Penta
Heavy
500728
Imprint 3 Light
501772
2015
Volume
Experimental
Control
Difference
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Comfort
20
3.1 (1.9)
5.0 (2.5)
Taste
20
3.3 (1.8)
2.9 (1.7)
-1.9 (3.0)
0.4 (2.1)
Pa
Issue
95% CI
Characteristic N
Experimental Control
Difference
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Pa
95% CI
.004
0.1-0.7
Viscosity
20
1.7 (0.5)
1.2 (0.4)
.46
Readability
20
1.0 (0.0)
1.7 (0.5)
-0.7 (0.5)
Visibility
20
1.0 (0.0)
1.5 (0.5)
-0.5 (0.5)
-0.6 to 1.3
Paired t test.
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests (2), P<.05.
0.5 (0.6)
Rater
Experimental
Control
Alpha or Bravo Alpha or Bravo
Pa 95% CIb
N
n (%)
n (%)
Clinical operator
20
13 (65)
17 (85)
.16 -46 to 6
Dental technician
20
16 (80)
17 (85)
.71 -31 to 21
14 (70)
16 (80)
.53 -41 to 21
2015
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Control
Mean (SD)
Difference
Mean (SD)
20
2.6 (1.8)
2.1 (1.1)
0.5 (1.5)
.20
-0.2 to 1.2
0.3 (1.9)
.57
-0.7 to 1.1
Pa
95% CI
20
2.7 (2.1)
2.4 (1.5)
Ease of pouring
20
1.0 (0.0)
1.1 (0.3)
-0.1 (0.3)
.16
-0.2 to 0.04
Ease of removal
20
1.3 (0.4)
1.7 (0.5)
-0.5 (0.5)
<.001b
-0.7 to -0.2
-0.1 (0.7)
Tear resistance
20
1.7 (0.5)
1.8 (0.4)
Adhesion
20
1.9 (0.6)
1.7 (0.7)
Visibility
20
1.5 (1.1)
1.8 (0.8)
Multiple pouring
20
1.8 (0.8)
2.2 (1.6)
Finish line
20
2.4 (1.9)
1.7 (1.0)
Overall satisfaction
20
1.8 (0.7)
2.1 (1.2)
.75
-0.4 to 0.3
.10
-0.04 to 0.4
-0.3 (1.0)
.19
-0.8 to 0.2
-0.4 (1.6)
.28
-1.2 to 0.4
.11
-0.2 to 1.6
.21
-0.8 to 0.2
0.2 (0.5)
0.7 (1.9)
-0.3 (1.0)
Paired t test.
b
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests (10), a=.05.
a
Dogan et al
Volume
Issue
4. Millar BJ, Dunne SM, Robinson PB. In vitro study of the number of surface
defects in monophase and two-phase addition silicone impressions.
J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:32-5.
5. Levartovsky S, Levy G, Brosh T, Harel N, Ganor Y, Pilo R. Dimensional
stability of polyvinyl siloxane impression material reproducing the sulcular
area. Dent Mater J 2013;32:25-31.
6. Martinez JE, Combe EC, Pesun IJ. Rheological properties of vinyl polysiloxane impression pastes. Dent Mater 2001;17:471-6.
7. Petrie CS, Walker MP, Omahony AM, Spencer P. Dimensional accuracy and
surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression
materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent
2003;90:365-72.
8. Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition
silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent
2004;92:151-4.
9. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Burgess JO, Mercante D, Holst S. Selected characteristics
of a new polyvinyl siloxane impression material - a randomized clinical trial.
Quintessence Int 2005;36:97-104.
10. Beier US, Grunert I, Kulmer S, Dumfahrt H. Quality of impressions using
hydrophilic polyvinyl siloxane in a clinical study of 249 patients. Int J
Prosthodont 2007;20:270-4.
11. Raigrodski AJ, Dogan S, Mancl LA, Heindl H. A clinical comparison of two
vinylpolysiloxane impression materials using the one-step technique.
J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:179-86.
12. Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made
by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/
light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent
2008;99:274-81.
13. Levartovsky S, Zalis M, Pilo R, Harel N, Ganor Y, Brosh T. The effect of
one-step vs. two-step impression techniques on long-term accuracy and
dimensional stability when the nish line is within the gingival sulcular area.
J Prosthodont 2014;23:124-33.
14. Tan E, Chai J, Wozniak WT. Working times of elastomeric impression materials
determined by dimensional accuracy. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:188-96.
15. Anneroth G, Nordenram A. Reaction of the gingiva to the application
of threads in the gingival pocket for taking impressions with elastic
material. An experimental histologic study. Odontol Revy 1969;20:301-10.
16. Hansen PA, Tira DE, Barlow J. Current methods of nish-line exposure by
practicing prosthodontists. J Prosthodont 1999;8:163-70.
17. Goldberg PV, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG. Periodontal considerations in
restorative and implant therapy. Periodontol 2000 2001;25:100-9.
18. van Strydonck DA, Slot DE, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden F. Effect
of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingival inammation and
staining in gingivitis patients: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:
1042-55.
19. Donovan TE, Chee WW. Current concepts in gingival displacement. Dent
Clin North Am 2004;48:433-44.
20. Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ, Jekki R, Won J. Gingival displacement for impression
making in xed prosthodontics: contemporary principles, materials, and
techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2014;58:45-68.
21. Tjan AHL, Nemetz H, Nguyen LTP, Contino R. Effect of tray space on the
accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent
1992;68:19-28.
22. Abuasi HA, Wassell RW. Comparison of a range of addition silicone
putty-wash impression materials used in the one- stage technique. Eur J
Prosthodont Restor Dent 1994;65:748-57.
23. Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT II, Hovijitra S, Brown DT,
Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: inuence of tray material,
impression material, and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-108.
24. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of
casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on
accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:204-9.
25. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efciency
outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5.
26. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients perception, treatment
comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10.
27. Kim JS, Dailey RJ. Biostatistics for oral health care. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell
Munksgaard; 2008. p. 165. 191, 194, 257.
28. Bowker AH. Bowkers test for symmetry. J Am Stat Assoc 1948;43:572-4.
29. Shao J, Tu D. The Jackknife and bootstrap. 1st ed. New York: SpringerVerlag, Inc; 1995. p. 23.
Corresponding author:
Dr Sami Dogan
1959 NE Pacic St, HSB D767c
Box 357456
Seattle, WA 98195
Email: samido@uw.edu
Copyright 2015 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Dogan et al