Effect of surfactant application on surface detail reproduction

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the influence of four laboratory surfactants on the surface detail reproduction of stone dies, cast using two addition-cured silicone impression materials. Methods: Under standardised conditions 100 impressions were made of a ruled test block (ADA specification 19), 50 using Extrude Wash and 50 using Aquasil Ultra XLV light body impression materials. 10 specimens of each impression material were treated with four laboratory surfactants namely: Tensilab, Wonderful, Aurofil and Wax-mate. The remaining 20 specimens were left untreated as controls. The impressions were cast in Suprastone (a type IV stone). 20, 50 and 75µm lines on both the impression specimens and the stone specimens were examined and scored by two independent examiners under x50 magnification. Results: (1) 48% of Extrude specimens and 42% of Aquasil specimens used could not fully reproduce the 20µ line under x50 magnification. (2) None of the surfactants used had a significant adverse effect on surface detail reproduction relative to the control (p>0.05). (3) Use of a new addition-cured silicone (Aquasil Ultra XLV) containing a smart wetting agent conveyed no advantages in terms of compatibility compared with a traditional addition-cured impression material (Extrude Wash) with Suprastone. Conclusions: Within the parameters of this experiment, the laboratory surfactants used had no significant adverse effect on the detail reproduction of Suprastone, relative to the control. A new addition-cured silicone (Aquasil Ultra XLV) containing a smart wetting agent conveyed no advantages over a traditional addition-cured silicone impression material (Extrude Wash).