Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Evaluation of material waste, dimensional stability, and detail reproduction of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials mixed with different mixing tips

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Redesigned mixing tips, promising less impression material waste, have been marketed. However, whether their use adversely affects the dimensional stability and detail reproduction of the impression material is unclear.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the dimensional stability, detail reproduction, and material waste of different polyvinyl siloxane impression materials (regular and light-body) mixed with 2 different mixing tips (MIXPAC T-Mixer mixing tip and MIXPAC helical mixing tip).

      Material and methods

      Six different polyvinyl siloxane impression materials were used in 2 different consistencies: Virtual Monophase and Virtual Light Body (Ivoclar Vivadent AG), Express XT Regular and Express XT Light Body (3M ESPE), and Panasil initial contact Regular and Panasil initial contact Light (Kettenbach). The polyvinyl siloxane impression materials were mixed with 2 different mixing tips: conventional helical and T-Mixer (n=10). The specimens were prepared in a metal matrix as per specification #19 of the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4823:2015. The materials were mixed with both mixing tips as per the manufacturer’s instructions, inserted into a perforated custom tray on the matrix, and allowed to polymerize completely. The dimensional stability was calculated based on the measurement of the reproduction of lines engraved in the metal matrix. Detail reproduction was evaluated through analysis of continuity and reproducibility of those lines, immediately, 7 days, and 14 days after polymerization. Material waste was assessed by the difference between the initial (before mixing) and final weight (after complete polymerization) of both mixing tips. The data on dimensional stability and detail reproduction among the materials were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test (α=.05). Comparison between the mixing tips was carried out with the Mann-Whitney test (α=.05), while the comparison among the periods of analysis (immediate, 7 days, and 14 days) was carried out with the Friedman test (α=.05). The data on material waste between the mixing tips were submitted to 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05).

      Results

      The T-Mixer mixing tip resulted in reduced material waste. For dimensional stability, Virtual Light mixed with T-Mixer resulted in lower dimensional change (0.53 ±0.58%) compared with the helical mixing tip (1.09 ±0.43%). Among the materials, Panasil Light presented higher values of dimensional change at immediate and 7-day analysis when mixed with T-Mixer tip with a statistical difference compared with Express Light, Virtual Light, and Panasil Regular (P<.05). In general, both mixing tips provided similar results in all periods of analysis (P>.05) for qualitative analysis of detail reproduction.

      Conclusions

      The T-Mixer tip resulted in less material waste compared with the helical mixing tip. In general, light-body materials showed higher dimensional stability when the T-Mixer tip was used compared with the conventional tip. In general, reduced detail reproduction was observed after periods longer than 7 days after impression making.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mann K.
        • Davids A.
        • Range U.
        • Richter G.
        • Boening K.
        • Reitemeier B.
        Experimental study on the use of spacer foils in two-step putty and wash impression procedures using silicone impression materials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 316-322
        • Balkenhol M.
        • Haunschild S.
        • Erbe C.
        • Wöstmann B.
        Influence of prolonged setting time on permanent deformation of elastomeric impression materials.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103: 288-294
        • Nassar U.
        • Oko A.
        • Adeeb S.
        • El-Rich M.
        • Flores-Mir C.
        An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 172-178
        • Aalaei S.H.
        • Rezaei Adli A.
        • Mansoorali M.R.
        • Gholami F.
        Dimensional stability of two polyvinyl siloxane impression materials in different time intervals.
        J Dent Biomater. 2015; 2: 155-161
        • Johnson G.H.
        • Craig R.G.
        Accuracy of four type of rubber impression materials compared with time of por and repeat por of models.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53: 484-490
      1. American National Standard/American Dental Association, specification no. 19 for non-aqueous at elastomeric dental impression.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1977; 94: 733-741
        • Leão M.P.
        • Pinto C.P.
        • Sponchiado A.P.
        • Ornaghi B.P.
        Dimensional stability of a novel polyvinyl siloxane impression technique.
        Braz J Oral Sci. 2014; 13: 118-123
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO specification no. 4823:2000. Dentistry - elastomeric impression materials.
        3rd ed. ISO, Geneva2000 (Available at:)
        • Keck S.C.
        Automixing: a new concept in elastomeric impression material delivery systems.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54: 479-483
        • Amin W.M.
        • Al-Ali M.H.
        • Tarawneh S.K.
        • Taha S.T.
        • Saleh M.W.
        • Ereifij N.
        The effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of impression materials and gypsum casts.
        J Clin Med Res. 2009; 1: 81-89
        • Nassar U.
        • Chow A.K.
        Surface detail reproduction and effect of disinfectant and long-term storage on the dimensional stability of a novel vinyl polyether silicone impression material.
        J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 494-498
        • Walker M.P.
        • Rondeau M.
        • Petrie C.
        • Tasca A.
        • Williams K.
        Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection.
        J Prosthodont. 2007; 16: 343-351
        • Papadogiannis D.
        • Lakes R.
        • Palaghias G.
        • Papadogiannis Y.
        Effect of storage time on the viscoelastic properties of elastomeric impression materials.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2012; 56: 11-18