Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of (1) various impression materials, (2) different storage times and (3) the proportion of inorganic filler on the accuracy and stability of elastometric impression materials.


METHODS
The impression materials studied included three alginate impression materials (Algiace Z, CAVEX and Jeltrate), five commercial silicone impression materials (Aquasil, Exaflex regular type, Express, Coltex fine and Rapid liner) and two experimental silicone impression materials designed for this study (KE106A and KE106B). Impressions were made of 10 metal dies that mimicked prepared crowns. After an impression was taken, dental stone was immediately poured into the alginate impressions, while the silicone impressions was poured 30 min later and waited for 1 h for setting. The second and third stone dies were made 1 and 24 h later, respectively. The diameters of the occlusal surfaces of the metal dies and stone casts were determined using photographs of the surfaces taken with a Kodak DC 290 digital camera. The pictures were then measured using a photomicrograph digitized integration system to calculate any discrepancy. Because each impression was used to make three rounds of stone dies, two-factor mixed factorial ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of materials and storage time on the accuracy of the stone casts. The simple effects analysis, combined with multiple comparisons considering the per family type I error rate, was performed following confirmation that an interaction between the two factors was significant.


RESULTS
The results showed that: (1) there was a significant interaction effect between materials and storage times on the accuracy of the impressions. (2) Two addition type silicone materials, Aquasil and Exaflex, had the greatest accuracy and stability. (3) The experimental material KE106A had the least accuracy in the first and second rounds and the alginate impression material CAVEX had the least accuracy in the third round. (4) The stabilities of CAVEX and Jeltrate were the least consistent of the 10 materials and decreased significantly with storage time. (5) When the experimental material had a low proportion of filler (KE106A), there was a significantly greater dimensional discrepancy compared to the same material with a higher proportion of filler (KE106B).


CONCLUSIONS
The accuracies varied among the 10 impression materials over three rounds. Of all the materials, the addition type silicone materials, Aquasil and Exaflex, had relatively greater accuracy and stability. The discrepancy of the alginate impression materials increased with storage time. The large loading of filler showed less discrepancy.
School of Dentistry, China Medical University, 91 Hsueh-Shih Road, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. saychen@mail.cmu.edu.tw <saychen@mail.cmu.edu.tw>
S Y
SY
Chen
W M
WM
Liang
F N
FN
Chen
D000464:Alginates / Q000737:chemistry; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003760:Dental Impression Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000295:instrumentation*; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D004548:Elasticity; D008422:Materials Testing; D003765:Models, Dental; D010969:Plastics / Q000737:chemistry; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012212:Rheology; D012826:Silicone Elastomers / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors
D000464:Alginates; D003760:Dental Impression Materials; D003764:Dental Materials; D010969:Plastics; D012826:Silicone Elastomers