Comparative elasticity tests for elastomeric (non putty) impression materials.
This study was conducted to evaluate the methods used for measuring the elastic recovery of various elastomeric impression materials. One brand from each chemical group was selected to allow relative ranking of the results from each deforming test mode. For compression tests, the polysulphide and silicone specimens made in metal moulds gave significantly less set than those made in acrylic moulds; this was not so for the polysiloxane and polyether specimens. For polysulphide and polyether materials, the set in compression was greater using the BSI balanced beam method than for an optical method without inertia or load effects; this was not so for silicone or polysiloxane materials. The elastic recovery of the materials did not alter significantly after ten minutes of strain release, except in tensile tests, where the elastic recovery continued to change for twenty minutes. The rank ordering of the deformation set showed a relative correlation for the compression test, a new tensile test method, and bend and torsion testing methods. Thus only one method is needed to determine set per cent.
Blomberg
P A
PA
University of Adelaide.
Mahmood
S
S
Smales
R J
RJ
Makinson
O F
OF
D003760:Dental Impression Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D004548:Elasticity; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000379:methods; D011145:Polyvinyls / Q000737:chemistry; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000737:chemistry; D012399:Rotation; D012408:Rubber / Q000737:chemistry*; D012826:Silicone Elastomers / Q000737:chemistry; D012833:Siloxanes / Q000737:chemistry; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013440:Sulfides / Q000737:chemistry; D013718:Tensile Strength; D013997:Time Factors
D003760:Dental Impression Materials; C022821:Impregum; D011145:Polyvinyls; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012826:Silicone Elastomers; D012833:Siloxanes; D013440:Sulfides; C034183:vinyl polysiloxane; D012408:Rubber; C032915:polysulfide