<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>Introduction: Flowability and hydrophilicity are essential properties of accurate impressions and casts. Aim of study: This study aimed to quantify these characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Material and Methods: A total number of eight impression materials, including vinyl polysiloxane (PVS), polyether (PE), and condensation silicone (CS) were thoroughly investigated in this study. The flowability of elastomers was proven with the shark fin test (SFT), and the hydrophilicity was determined with contact angle (CA) measurements. Results: The shark fins’ (SF) of VPSs presented 11.57 mm (SD 3.49), while the PE 11.37 mm (SD 5.06) and CS 8.1 mm average values. Some of the products showed better flowability. Based on 128 measured CAs, the examined polyethers had the lowest CAs which indicate good hydrophilicity. Conclusions: A good performance of an impression material in one of the involved tests (SFT and CA) does not mean a similar result in the other analysis. All investigated impression materials could be considered hydrophilic as their CA was lower than 90°. The SFTs of light-bodied VPSs and PEs suggest reliable use of them in dental practice.</p>
</abstract>

Introduction: Flowability and hydrophilicity are essential properties of accurate impressions and casts. Aim of study: This study aimed to quantify these characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Material and Methods: A total number of eight impression materials, including vinyl polysiloxane (PVS), polyether (PE), and condensation silicone (CS) were thoroughly investigated in this study. The flowability of elastomers was proven with the shark fin test (SFT), and the hydrophilicity was determined with contact angle (CA) measurements. Results: The shark fins’ (SF) of VPSs presented 11.57 mm (SD 3.49), while the PE 11.37 mm (SD 5.06) and CS 8.1 mm average values. Some of the products showed better flowability. Based on 128 measured CAs, the examined polyethers had the lowest CAs which indicate good hydrophilicity. Conclusions: A good performance of an impression material in one of the involved tests (SFT and CA) does not mean a similar result in the other analysis. All investigated impression materials could be considered hydrophilic as their CA was lower than 90°. The SFTs of light-bodied VPSs and PEs suggest reliable use of them in dental practice.

Quantification of flowability and hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu-Mureș

Acta Stomatologica Marisiensis Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Introduction: Flowability and hydrophilicity are essential properties of accurate impressions and casts. Aim of study: This study aimed to quantify these...

Quantification of flowability and hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

Publicado en línea: 14 dic 2023

Páginas: 33 - 38

Recibido: 22 oct 2023

Aceptado: 10 dic 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/asmj-2023-0010

Palabras clave
elastomeric impression materials, hydrophilicity, flowability

© 2023 Csaba Dudas et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Quantification of flowability and hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.

Publicado en línea: 14 dic 2023

Páginas: 33 - 38

Recibido: 22 oct 2023

Aceptado: 10 dic 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/asmj-2023-0010

Palabras claveelastomeric impression materials, hydrophilicity, flowability

© 2023 Csaba Dudas et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Palabras clave
elastomeric impression materials, hydrophilicity, flowability