IADR Abstract Archives

Comparing Immediate Tear Strength of Elastomeric Impression Materials

Objective: This study examines the immediate tear strengths (MPa) of elastomeric impression materials using the Boghosian and Lautenschlager Tear Strength Test Method and following the manufacturer minimum recommended setting time (MRST).

Method: Seven sample groups (n=20 each group) were created using a stainless steel mold (101.6 mm long, 19.05mm wide and 2.7mm thick) and different elastomeric impression materials. A notch was created in the central region of each sample using a stainless steel insert that created either a 0.30mm (n=10) or 0.50mm thick (n=10) notch. Each mold was immersed in a water bath of 35±1°C for five minutes and removed. The elastomeric impression materials were loaded into the mold and immersed after 20 seconds for the manufacturer minimum recommended setting time. Specimen was removed from water bath, immediately placed into universal testing machine (Instron® 5582), and subjected to tensile force at a crosshead speed of 500 mm/min until failure. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA with a post hoc Tukey HSD for pair wise analysis among groups. Statistical differences were predetermined at p<0.05.

Result:

Groups

Material

Average Stress MPa

(Psi/mean±SD)

Mold 338 (0.50mm thickness)

Average Stress MPa

(Psi/mean±SD)

Mold 348 (0.30mm thickness)

1

AquasilTM Monophase (Dentsply Caulk)

607.541±39.013 A

462.585±49.221F

2

Tissue Management Impression Material (Dentsply Caulk)

534.072±28.980 B

493.367±28.320 F

3

Tissue Management Impression Material Tray (Dentsply Caulk)

533.654±55.597 B

497.955±58.582 F

4

ImprintTM 4 Light (3M ESPE)

349.668±31.245 C

287.535±55.853 G

5

Take 1® Advanced (Kerr)

288.123±37.414 D

253.665±22.578 G

6

Flexitime® (Heraeus)

268.576±33.100 D

256.620±9.212 G

7

ImpregumTM Soft Lightbody (3M ESPE)

175.791±21.673 E

183.210±34.355 H

Groups with the same letter superscript are not statistically different from one another.

Group 1 yielded statistically higher tensile strength compared to the other groups in the 0.5mm thickness. For the 0.3mm thickness, Group 3 showed statistically higher tear strengths compared to Groups 4, 5, 6, 7.

Conclusion: Capturing crown and bridge margins accurately is critical for a well-fitting prosthesis. Impression materials should exhibit high tear strengths to avoid tearing in thin areas, such as those within the sulcus, when impression trays are removed from the mouth.

Division: AADR/CADR Annual Meeting
Meeting: 2014 AADR/CADR Annual Meeting (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Year: 2014
Final Presentation ID: 501
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 9: Other Materials - Chemistry, Properties and Performance
Authors
  • Ciciolla, Elena  ( Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA )
  • Small, Jesse  ( Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA )
  • Harsono, Masly  ( Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA )
  • Perry, Ronald  ( Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA )
  • SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Materials Properties and Chemistry
    03/20/2014