An in vitro investigation into the physical properties of irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM A number of manufacturers have introduced new products that are marketed as alternatives to irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials. However, there is a paucity of laboratory and clinical research on these products compared to traditional irreversible hydrocolloid. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the detail reproduction, gypsum compatibility, and linear dimensional change of 3 recently introduced impression materials designed as alternatives to irreversible hydrocolloid. MATERIAL AND METHODS The tested materials were Position Penta Quick, Silgimix, and AlgiNot. An irreversible hydrocolloid impression material, Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial, served as the control. The parameters of detail reproduction, gypsum compatibility, and linear dimensional change were tested in accordance with ANSI/ADA Specifications No. 18 and 19. The gypsum compatibility was tested using a type III stone (Microstone Golden) and a type IV stone (Die-Keen Green). The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05). RESULTS The test materials demonstrated significantly (P<.001) better detail reproduction than the control material. Silgimix exhibited the best compatibility with Microstone, whereas AlgiNot and Position Penta Quick exhibited the best gypsum compatibility with Die-Keen. An incompatibility was observed over time between the Jeltrate control material and the Microstone gypsum material. For linear dimensional change, the mean dimension of the control material most closely approximated the distance between the lines on the test die, but it exhibited the greatest variability in measurements. All of the test materials exhibited linear dimensional change within the ADA's accepted limit of 1.0%. CONCLUSIONS The 3 new impression materials exhibited better detail reproduction and less variability in linear dimensional change than the irreversible hydrocolloid control. Gypsum compatibility varied with the brand of gypsum used, with an incompatibility identified between the control material (Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial) and Microstone related to surface changes observed over time.

[1]  G. Sprotte.  Statement of Problem , 1985 .

[2]  William W Nagy,et al.  Delayed linear expansion of improved dental stone. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  W. Barnes.  Impression materials. , 1946, Hospital Corps quarterly.

[4]  W. Johnston,et al.  Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations. , 2000, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[5]  M. Kern,et al.  Three-dimensional investigation of the accuracy of impression materials after disinfection. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  A A Caputo,et al.  Effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy of impression materials. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  C. Owen.  An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products. Part II. A refined discriminatory procedure. , 1986, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[8]  K. D. Jørgensen,et al.  Relationship between the porosity and compressive strength of dental stone. , 1971, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[9]  C. Goodacre,et al.  Dimensional accuracy of combined reversible and irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  R. Earnshaw,et al.  The effects of alginate impressions on the surface of cast gypsum. I. The physical and chemical structure of the cast surface. , 1980, Australian dental journal.

[11]  X Lepe,et al.  Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  B. Musikant,et al.  Dimensional accuracy of three different alginate impression materials. , 1995, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[13]  C. Owen.  An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products. Part I. Capacity to record grooves on the international standard die. , 1986, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation.

[14]  Clark Ae,et al.  Elastomeric impression materials. , 1981 .

[15]  K D Rudd,et al.  Compatibility of alginate impression materials and dental stones. , 1971, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  L. Carlyle.  Compatibility of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials with dental stones. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  W. Eames,et al.  New irreversible hydrocolloid silicone impression material. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  M. Bergman,et al.  Alginate impression materials, dimensional stability and surface detail sharpness following treatment with disinfectant solutions. , 1985, Swedish dental journal.

[19]  R. Storer,et al.  An investigation of methods available for sterilising impressions , 1981, British Dental Journal.

[20]  Owen Cp.  An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products. Part II. A refined discriminatory procedure. , 1986 .

[21]  H. J. Wilson,et al.  Addition curing silicone rubber impression materials. An appraisal of their physical properties , 1978, British Dental Journal.

[22]  H. Wilson,et al.  Elastomeric impression materials. A method of measuring dimensional stability , 1975, British Dental Journal.