Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the flow behaviour of hand dispensed impression materials at the pre-determined end of tray filling time of 19 ml, 30 ml, and 46 ml trays and at the manufacture's suggested end of working time (EWT).
Methods: A 2mm slit shark-fin device (#3048 IADR 2005) with a standard force of 415g was applied to four impression materials (sixteen groups, N=5) [Aquasil Ultra Heavy SS (A1,Dentsply), Flexitime Monophase (F1,Heraeus-Kulzer), Genie Regular Body Rapid (G1,Sultan), and Impregum Soft Quick (I1,3MESPE)] to measure the flow at the pre-determined end of tray filling time of 19 ml, 30 ml, and 46 ml trays and at the manufacture's suggested end of working time (EWT). Five minutes after the start of the mix, the device was disassembled and the height of the shark fin was measured.
Results: The average heights of the shark-fins were statistically analyzed by ONE-WAY ANOVA with Fisher Test and TWO-WAY ANOVA (p<0.05).
| 19 ml | 30 ml | 46 ml | EWT | ||||||||
Ht | SD | Rank* | Ht | SD | Rank* | Ht | SD | Rank* | Ht | SD | Rank* | |
A1 | 11mm | 0.4 | C | 8mm | 0.4 | D | 6mm | 0.5 | C | 1mm | 0.3 | C |
F1 | 9mm | 0.8 | D | 7mm | 1.9 | C | 8mm | 0.4 | C | 4mm | 0.4 | B |
G1 | 18mm | 0.7 | B | 17mm | 0.5 | B | 14mm | 1.9 | B | 2mm | 0.6 | C |
I1 | 25mm | 0.6 | A | 24mm | 0.7 | A | 23mm | 0.4 | A | 23mm | 0.9 | A |
*Same letters indicates no significant difference (p<0.05) within the same column.
Conclusions: Impregum exhibited the more stable flow compared to the other tested materials at all tray sizes and EWT. This may have clinical benefits for more accurate impression, more testing needed. Sponsored in part by 3M ESPE.