Contact angle of unset elastomeric impression materials Presented at the American Association for Dental Research Annual Meeting, Charlotte, NC, March 2014.

Academic Article

Abstract

  • Statement of problem Some elastomeric impression materials are hydrophobic, and it is often necessary to take definitive impressions of teeth coated with some saliva. New hydrophilic materials have been developed. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare contact angles of water and saliva on 7 unset elastomeric impression materials at 5 time points from the start of mixing. Material and methods Two traditional polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) (Aquasil, Take 1), 2 modified PVS (Imprint 4, Panasil), a polyether (Impregum), and 2 hybrid (Identium, EXA'lence) materials were compared. Each material was flattened to 2 mm and a 5 μL drop of distilled water or saliva was dropped on the surface at 25 seconds (t0) after the start of mix. Contact angle measurements were made with a digital microscope at initial contact (t0), t1=2 seconds, t2=5 seconds, t3=50% working time, and t4=95% working time. Data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model analysis, and individual 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests (α=.05). Results For water, materials grouped into 3 categories at all time-points: the modified PVS and one hybrid material (Identium) produced the lowest contact angles, the polyether material was intermediate, and the traditional PVS materials and the other hybrid (EXA'lence) produced the highest contact angles. For saliva, Identium, Impregum, and Imprint 4 were in the group with the lowest contact angle at most time points. Conclusion Modified PVS materials and one of the hybrid materials are more hydrophilic than traditional PVS materials when measured with water. Saliva behaves differently than water in contact angle measurement on unset impression material and produces a lower contact angle on polyether based materials.
  • Published In

    Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Menees TS; Radhakrishnan R; Ramp LC; Burgess JO; Lawson NC
  • Start Page

  • 536
  • End Page

  • 542
  • Volume

  • 114
  • Issue

  • 4