QUALITY OF IMPRESSIONS USING TWO DIFFERENT BRANDS OF POLYVINYL SILOXANE IMPRESSION MATERIALS
Background: This study was to evaluate the impression quality and clinical success of 2 Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression materials by using dual-viscosity 1-step impression technique and the putty-wash two-step impression technique.
Methods: In this study, Variotime (Heraeus, Hanau, Germany) and a novel silicone Spirias (Imicryl, Konya, Turkey) were selected as PVS impression materials. A total of 40 samples were divided into groups according to the impression technique. Three possible categories were established to rate the impression quality. The impression was examined using a laboratory microscope (Opmi Pico, Zeiss) and lenses with 2X to 6X magnification for the presence or absence of bubbles or voids and the complete reproduction of the preparation finish line. A spreadsheet (Excel v2016; Microsoft Corp) was used for processing statistical data. Results of the analysis were calculated as mean and frequency.
Results: In the impressions taken with Variotime, the percentage of the successful impression is 95% (Criteria I - II). Only one impression was found unacceptable (criteria III). In impressions with Spirias, the percentage of successful impressions is 100% (Criteria I - II). No-impression was found unacceptable (criterion III).
Conclusion: The quality of impressions of both brands Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials revealed a high rate (97.5%) For more precise results, many new studies were needed on different Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials.
Dogan S, Schwedhelm ER, Heindl H, Mancl L, Raigrodski AJ. Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(2):217–22.
Garg S, Kumar S, Jain S, Aggarwal R, Choudhary S, Reddy NK. Comparison of dimensional accuracy of stone models fabricated by three different impression techniques using two brands of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(8):928–34.
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 finish line is within the gingival sulcular area. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(2):124–33.
Leao MP, Pinto CP, Sponchiado AP, Ornaghi BP. Dimensional stability of a novel polyvinyl siloxane impression technique. Brazilian J Oral Sci. 2014;13(2):118–23.
Basapogu S, Pilla A, Pathipaka S. Dimensional accuracy of hydrophilic and hydrophobic VPS impression materials using different impression techniques - an invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(2):56-9.
Kit HT. Impression Technique Guide. :33–4. Available from: http://www.brainserver.net/uploads/og/ContentImages/HealthProImages/Dental_Offers/Heraeus_Offers/36398_Variotime_StepGuide_EE.pdf
Ghahremanloo A, Seifi M, Ghanbarzade J, Abrisham SM, Javan RA. Effect of polyvinyl siloxane viscosity on accuracy of dental implant impressions. J Dent (Tehran). 2017;14(1):40-7.
Pereira JR, Murata KY, do Valle AL, Ghizoni JS, Shiratori FK. Linear dimensional changes in plaster die models using different elastomeric materials. Braz Oral Res. 2010;24(3):336–41.
Ahmed M, Chakmakchi M. An in vitro study to evaluate the accuracy of addition silicone and polyether impression materials after different pouring time. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2016;16(1):10–8.
Hiremath V, Vinayakumar G, Ragher M, Rayannavar S, Bembalagi M, Ashwini BL. An evaluation of the effect of various gloves on polymerization inhibition of elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2017;9(1):132-7.
Franco EB, da Cunha LF, Herrera FS, Benetti AR. Accuracy of single-step versus 2-step double-mix impression technique. ISRN Dent. 2011;2011:341546. doi: 10.5402/2011/341546
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 HILAL EKSI OZSOY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.