Method: Ten specimens 75 X 25 X 1 mm were created for each material tested. A 40 mm cut in the specimen was made with a #15 scalpel. Respectively the Fast Set Light Body and Bite Registration impression materials used were: 1) Defend Super Hydrophilic and Defend Bite (Mydent); 2) Splash VPS and Vanilla Bite (DenMat); 3) Genie VPS and Genie Bite (Sultan); 4) VP Mix and Blu-Bite (Henry Schein); and 5) Reflection VPS and High Performance Bite (Patterson). Using an ASTM suggested separation rate of 50 mm/min (Universal Testing Machine; MTS, Chicago, IL) specimens were tested to failure. Tear strength (Ts) was was calculated by the formula Ts = F/d; where F is the force in Newtons and d is the mean thickness of each specimen in millimeters. Tswas recorded in Newtons per millimeter.
Result:
Fast Set, Light Body |
||||
Genie VPS |
Splash VPS |
VP Mix |
Defend Super |
Reflection VPS |
0.44 ± 0.06A |
0.44 ± 0.11A,B |
0.38 ± 0.07A,B |
0.37 ± 0.05A,B |
0.35 ± 0.07B |
Bite Registration |
||||
Defend Bite |
Vanilla Bite |
Genie Bite |
Blu-Bite |
HP Bite |
0.54 ± 0.09A |
0.21 ± 0.05B |
0.23 ± 0.05C |
0.29 ± 0.06C,D |
0.39 ± 0.07D |
Conclusion: Among the light body impression materials: Genie had significantly higher tear strength than Reflection, but there were no other significant differences. For bite registration materials: Defend Bite was significantly more tear resistant than the other four materials. Vanilla was significantly higher than Genie, Blu-Bite and HP Bite. There was no significant difference between Genie and Blu-Bite, and both were significantly different from HP Bite. Supported by Mydent International.