A Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Detail Reproduction for Polyvinyl Siloxane and Vinyl Siloxane Ether under Dry and Moist ConditionsAn In-vitro Study
Introduction: The conventional impression procedure plays a major role in prosthodontics inspite of advancement in intraoral scanning devices and 3D imaging procedures. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction are important for recording an impression. Aim: The study evaluated and co...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2af870f1d2304bd99fc48dea3d46d4bc |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Introduction: The conventional impression procedure plays a
major role in prosthodontics inspite of advancement in intraoral scanning devices and 3D imaging procedures. Dimensional
accuracy and surface detail reproduction are important for
recording an impression.
Aim: The study evaluated and compared the dimensional accuracy
and surface detail reproduction of Polyvinyl Siloxane (PVS) and
vinyl siloxane ether impression materials when used under dry and
moist conditions.
Materials and Methods: An in-vitro study was conducted in the
Department of Prosthodontics, Rural Dental College, Pravara
Institute of Medical Sciences, Loni, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra,
India, for a period of two years from October 2018 to September
2020. A total of 60 impressions were made with PVS (Group A) and
vinyl siloxane ether (Group B) under dry (A1, B1) and moist (A2,
B2) conditions of stainless steel dies which had lines engraved
on superior surface of the die. Using a Harloc’s Tool maker’s
microscope, dimensional accuracy was measured by comparing
the width of line Y in each impression. Surface detail reproduction
was evaluated by American Dental Association (ADA) specification
no. 19 where it stated continuous replication of at least any two
lines out of the three lines inscribed on the die.
Data analysis processing was performed in the SYSTAT version
12 (made by Crane’s software, Bangalore). Student’s unpaired
t-test and Chi-square test were performed to determine statistical
difference between PVS and vinyl siloxane ether where the level
of significance was set at 5% and 1%.
Results: The mean dimensional change and SD values for PVS
under dry condition ranged from 21.93±2.46 to 22.40±2.89 (in
mm). The mean dimensional change and SD values for PVS under
moist condition ranged from 22.87±3.20 to 23.33±3.42. The
mean dimensional change and SD values for vinyl siloxane ether
under dry condition ranged from 21.93±3.61 to 24.73±5.20. The
mean dimensional change and SD values for vinyl siloxane ether
under moist condition ranged from 21.93±4.48 to 22.87±4.15. No
statistical difference was found under dry and moist conditions
within 2 hours and after 24 hours for both the materials.
Conclusion: The study revealed no significant difference between
dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction for PVS
and vinyl siloxane ether. Both the materials can reproduce the
details under dry and moist conditions satisfactorily and remained
dimensionally stable till 24 hours after impression making. |
|---|