Polyether has best penetration ability and polyvinylsiloxane has highest tensile strength among elastomeric dental impression materials

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare penetration ability and tensile strength among vinylsiloxanether (VSE), polyether (PE), and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) elastomeric dental impression materials.

The models were constructed for penetration ability tests by simulating gingival sulcus width and a moist environment. The 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mm of simulated gingival sulcus widths were used. Each simulated gingival sulcus width was impressed with 10 repeats per one elastomeric impression material. All extension of elastomeric dental impression materials was scaled by Measuring Microscope (MM-11; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). On the issue of the tensile strength study, the models were constructed following type 1 of the ISO 37:2017 specifications and/or type C of ASTM.D412 specifications. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference test was performed in the penetration ability test. The one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test were performed in the tensile strength test. The significance level was set at 0.05.

The Results of the study are: 

• Polyether showed the best extension into all widths of simulated sulcus followed by vinylsiloxanether and polyvinylsiloxane, respectively.
• Polyvinylsiloxane was significantly higher in tensile strength than vinylsiloxanether and Polyether, while VSE was significantly higher than Polyether.

Thus, the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials was dependent on gingival sulcus width. The wider the sulcular width, the better the penetration ability of elastomeric dental impression materials. Polyether presented the best penetration ability, while the novel polyvinylsiloxane showed the highest tensile strength.

Reference:

Pongsakorn Apinsathanon et al. Penetration and Tensile Strength of Various Impression Materials of Vinylsiloxanether, Polyether, and Polyvinylsiloxane Impression Materials. CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 339-345. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735793