An in vitro study on the dimensional

stability of a vinyl polyether silicone

impression material over a prolonged
storage period
Usama Nassar, DDS, MS,a Andrea Oko, BSc, MSc, DDS,b
Samer Adeeb, PhD, P Eng,c Marwan El-Rich, PhD, MSc, Eng,d
and Carlos Flores-Mir, DDS, MSc, DSce
Faculties of Engineering, and Medicine and Dentistry, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Statement of problem. A new elastomeric impression material, a vinyl polyether silicone, has been commercially introduced. Its dimensional stability at different pouring times has not been reported.
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dimensional stability of vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) impressions as a function of delayed-pouring time for up to 2 weeks after performing a recommended clinical disinfection
procedure.
Material and methods. The 3 medium-body impression materials tested were EXAlence 370, Imprint 3, and Impregum Penta soft. Impressions of a cylindrical metal model, which served as a control, were made and poured in a
Type V stone after being disinfected in 2.5% buffered glutaraldehyde solution. Die diameter and anteroposterior and
cross-arch measurements on each cast were made and compared to direct measurements of the control with a digital
micrometer. The linear dimensional changes were compared and analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (=.05).
Results. Considering the absolute values for the mean percentage dimensional change, VPES cast measurements were
below 1.0% (P<.001), with the majority being minimal (0.34%) at all pour times. Measurements of the casts were
larger than those of the control in all but one specimen. The percentage dimensional changes of the individual die
diameters were higher than those of the anteroposterior and cross-arch linear measurements. Casts produced from
VPES impressions had similar dimensional changes to those of VPS at 1 week of storage and similar changes to those
of PE at 2 weeks of storage. The behavior of VPES impressions varied from being the most accurate at immediate-pour
to gradually exhibiting higher dimensional changes as time progressed.
Conclusions. Casts produced from a disinfected regular set VPES (EXAlence 370 monophase) demonstrated excellent
dimensional stability at different pour times and were comparable to the tested VPS and PE impression materials. (J
Prosthet Dent 2013;109:172-178)

Clinical Implications

EXAlence 370 monophase provides a new option for use in clinical

dentistry. As this in vitro evaluation shows, the material is
dimensionally stable at different pouring periods up to 2 weeks.

This study was supported by Student Research Grant of the Academy of Prosthodontics.
Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.
Private practice, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
c
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
d
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
e
Associate Professor, Head of the Division of Orthodontics and Director of the Orthodontic Graduate Program,
Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.
a

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Nassar et al

173

March 2013
Vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE) impression materials are
commonly used to produce final impressions in restorative dentistry. VPS
and PE exhibit excellent dimensional
stability under different test and storage conditions.1-6
Differences in the dimensional stability of these 2 materials have been
reported based on the conditions of
the study environment. Unlike VPS,
studies recommended pouring PE
impressions within 1 hour7,8 or within
24 hours9,10 because the loss of volatile substances or absorption of water
contributes to distortion over time.
Although VPS and PE produced
satisfactory dimensional stability
under dry and moist conditions,11
PE produced better surface details
than VPS under moist conditions.
This is in agreement with the conclusion of another study12 which reported that PE impressions should
be used when moisture control is
difficult. Likewise, others13 have
shown that 2 hydrophilic VPS materials were dimensionally accurate
under dry, moist, and wet conditions. The best surface details, however, were obtained only under dry
test conditions.
In 2009, a vinyl polyether silicone product (VPES) (EXAlence; GC
America, Alsip, Ill) was commercially
introduced. This material is available
in a variety of consistencies and setting times. EXAlence is composed of
a combination of VPS and PE and is
promoted as a hydrophilic material
that presumably maintains the stability of the parent products. The manufacturer purports that the pouring of
EXAlence impressions can be delayed
for up to 2 weeks. Currently no research data support this claim. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to test and compare the dimensional
stability of EXAlence 370 (VPES)
Monophase impression material to
that of Imprint 3 (VPS) Monophase
and Impregum Penta soft (PE) medium-body impression materials.
The null hypothesis was that there
would be no significant difference in

Nassar et al

dimensional stability between gypsum casts poured from VPES and

casts poured from PE and VPS impressions as compared to a control
metal model of known dimensions.
This null hypothesis was tested as a
function of storage time by making
measurements on casts poured from
the impressions immediately and after storage for 1 day, 1 week, and 2
weeks following a standard disinfecting procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The dimensional stability of the 3
impression materials was investigated
by making measurements on casts
obtained from impressions of a metal
control model. The metal model (Fig.

1) was designed and custom milled to

simulate a dental arch with 4 parallelsided cylinders of known dimensions
approximating the position of the
canines and first molars. The direct
measurements obtained from this
model were used as the control for
comparisons to measurements from
casts poured from the impressions of
the model. The 3 impression materials
tested were a vinyl polyether silicone
VPES (EXAlence 370 monophase;
GC America), a vinyl polysiloxane VPS
(Imprint 3 monophase; 3M ESPE, St
Paul, Minn), and a polyether PE (medium body Impregum Penta soft; 3M
ESPE AG, Seefeld, Germany). The impression materials, dental stone, tray
material, and disinfectant are listed in
Table I.

1 Custom-milled metal model of dental arch with 4 cylinders (teeth)

labeled A, B, C, and D. Diameter of cylinders B and C was 6.350 mm
and of cylinders A and D 8.890 mm at time of manufacturing.

Table I. Materials used in study

Materials
EXAlence 370

Type

Manufacturer

Lot Number

Regular set VPES

GC America Inc

1001051

Monophase
Imprint 3

Alsip, Ill
VPS

Monophase
Impregum

Medium body PE

Metricide 28

3M ESPE AG

70-2011-2495-8

Seefeld, Germany
Type V dental stone

(prepackaged)
Triad Trutray

70-2010-5108-6

St. Paul, Minn

Penta soft
Die Keen Green

3M ESPE

Heraus Kulzer, LLC

D1102028

South Bend, Ind

VLC custom tray

Dentsply Trubyte

material

York, Pa

Activated 2.5%

Metrex

Glutaraldehyde

Orange, Calif

110113A
70-8120-5

174

Volume 109 Issue 3

Duplicate casts of the metal model were used to fabricate 240 custom
trays (VLC Trutray Triad sheets; Dentsply Trubyte, York, Pa). VPS and PE
adhesives were applied to the trays
and left for the recommended time.
No latex products were used during
the investigation. VPS was dispensed
from 50 mL automixing cartridges. PE
and VPES were dispensed by an automatic mixing unit (Pentamix II; 3M
ESPE). After the impression material
had been dispensed into the custom
tray, the metal model was carefully
seated in the tray; the same pattern
was used for all specimens. To reproduce the exact seating position
of the trays over the metal model for
all impressions, the inner ledges of
the model and the exact extension
of the custom tray at the distal end
of the model were used as a guide
to repeatedly center the model in
the same position. After the recommended time had elapsed, the metal model was removed in the same
manner for all impressions.
For each material, 20 impressions
were made for each of the 4 pour
times, which were immediate pour, 1
day, 1 week, and 2 weeks, resulting in
240 impressions. The sample size of
20 was calculated based on the study
of Walker et al,11 by using a power of
90% (type II error), an alpha of 5%
(type I error), and considering 10
measurement variables.
After separation from the metal
model, each impression was rinsed
under tap water for 30 seconds to
simulate rinsing off saliva and blood
in a clinical situation. A gentle stream
of air was then used to remove excess
water, and the impressions were left
on the bench top to air dry at room
temperature (22C 1C) for 30
minutes. The impressions were then
immersed in 2.5% buffered glutaraldehyde disinfectant (Metricide 28;
Metrex, Orange, Calif ) at room temperature for 30 minutes. It has been
shown that VPS and PE impressions
can be safely immersed in glutaraldehyde solutions for short intervals of
20 to 30 minutes without any drastic

2 Cast poured from impression made of metal model. Each cast had
6 measurements of cylinder diameter A/D and B/C, anteroposterior
AB/CD, and cross-arch dimensions BC, DA, and AC/BC as shown.
changes in their properties.14-18 After
the disinfecting procedure, each impression was rinsed thoroughly under
tap water for 30 seconds to remove
disinfectant residues and dried with
a gentle air stream. The impressions
were poured either immediately, after
1 day, after 1 week, or after 2 weeks.
Prepackaged Type V die stone
(Die-Keen; Heraeus, South Bend, Ind)
was used to make the casts. As suggested, 60 grams of powder and 13
mL of distilled water were first mixed
by hand then by vacuum-mixing for
20 seconds. The stone was carefully
vibrated into the impression and
was left for 1 hour. The casts were
removed in the same manner for all
casts by using their distal edges and
were number coded in preparation for
measurements. One person made the
measurements with a digital micrometer
(Mitutoyo IP 54; Mitutoyo Canada
Inc, Mississauga, Canada) (resolution
1 m; instrument error 2 m).
The measurements made on the
240 casts were as follows: the diameter of the 4 cylinders (A, B, C, and D
- the cylinders had known dimensions
(Fig. 1), which provided an optimal
way to compare the measurements
of the casts to the metal model);
anteroposterior measurements (AB
and CD); and cross-arch measurements (BC, DA, AC, and BD) (Fig. 2).
These individual measurements were
paired as follows: cylinders A and D;

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

cylinders B and C; anteroposterior

measurements AB and CD; and crossarch measurements AC and BD. The
measurements BC and DA were not
paired because they had different dimensions. The total number of measurements was, therefore, 6.
Statistical analysis was performed
with the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test (a=.05). The percentage
of dimensional change for each measurement, material, and time point
was calculated as follows:
Dimension=100 (M1M2)/M1,
where M1 is the measurement from
the metal model and M2 is the equivalent measurement from the stone cast.

RESULTS

The cast measurements at all pour
times had negative values except for
the combined cylinder measurements
A/D in the immediate pour of VPES
(Table II, Fig. 3), which had a mean
dimensional change of 0.04% 0.38%.
Therefore, with the exception of this
measurement, the mean dimensions
of casts were larger than those of the
metal model.
Considering the absolute values
for mean percentage dimensional
changes, all measurements, regardless of the impression material type
or storage time, were below 1% with
the single exception of 1-week PE for
the smaller cylinders B/C. The mean

Nassar et al

175

March 2013

Table II. Mean percentage difference (SD) for all materials, time points,
and measurements

Impression
Materials A/D

Time Point
Immediate casts

VPES
VPS
PE
VPES

1-Day casts

VPS
PE
VPES

1-Week casts

VPS
PE
VPES

2-Week Casts

VPS
PE

B/C AB/CD

BC

DA

AC/BD

0.04

-0.24

-0.23

-0.15

-0.12

-0.10

(0.38)

(0.38)

(0.11)

(0.11)

(0.08)

(0.08)

-0.29

-0.55

-0.35

-0.33

-0.16

-0.22

(0.16)

(0.20)

(0.08)

(0.10)

(0.07)

(0.06)

-0.29

-0.41

-0.25

-0.19

-0.20

-0.13

(0.30)

(0.40)

(0.13)

(0.14)

(0.07)

(0.06)

-0.22

-0.55

-0.34

-0.26

-0.20

-0.18

(0.17)

(0.22)

(0.12)

(0.19)

(0.13)

(0.10)

-0.30

-0.48

-0.35

-0.26

-0.16

-0.19

(0.11)

(0.15)

(0.10)

(0.07)

(0.06)

(0.05)

-0.31

-0.63

-0.46

-0.29

-0.20

-0.18

(0.34)

(0.36)

(0.16)

(0.15)

(0.14)

(0.14)

-0.23

-0.63

-0.23

-0.24

-0.19

-0.17

(0.25)

(0.37)

(0.17)

(0.06)

(0.09)

(0.08)

-0.28

-0.51

-0.32

-0.21

-0.17

-0.19

(0.27)

(0.29)

(0.17)

(0.09)

(0.09)

(0.07)

-0.48

-1.14

-0.36

-0.34

-0.20

-0.17

(0.41)

(0.55)

(0.17)

(0.18)

(0.07)

(0.09)

-0.26

-0.83

-0.31

-0.28

-0.15

-0.15

(0.24)

(0.25)

(0.10)

(0.08)

(0.12)

(0.05)

-0.19

-0.33

-0.26

-0.23

-0.13

-0.16

(0.15)

(0.17)

(0.11)

(0.07)

(0.06)

(0.06)

-0.45

-0.90

-0.37

-0.26

-0.21

-0.18

(0.51)

(0.26)

(0.20)

(0.09)

(0.10)

(0.09)

Immediate Casts

0.6

Mean Percentage
Dimensional Change

0.4

A/D

B/C

AB/CD

BC

DA

AC/BD

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

VPES
VPS
PE

Measurement
3 Mean percentage dimensional change values for measurements from
immediate-pour casts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Statistically
significant differences exist between VPES and VPS for cylinder measurements
A/D (P=.001), B/C (P=.003), anteroposterior measurement AB/CD (P=.001),
cross-arch measurements BC (P<.001), and AC/BD (P<.001) and between
VPES and PE for cylinder measurements A/D (P=.011) and DA (P=.002).

Nassar et al

percentage dimensional change of

the majority of VPES measurements
was minimal (0.34%) at all pour
times (Table II, Figs. 3-6). The measurements exhibiting greater mean
percentage dimensional change were
cylinders B/C at 1-day, 1-week, and
2-week storage times. The average
values of cylinders B/C were -0.55%
0.22% for 1-day, -0.63% 0.37%
for 1-week, and -0.83% 0.25% for
2-week pours (Table II). Four of the
mean percentage dimensional change
values for the diameter measurements
had standard deviations greater than
the calculated means, indicating the
presence of some positive dimensional change values as well as substantial
variance in the measurements made.
The normality of the data was
tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test
(a=.05). Up to 30% of measurements
were shown not to be normally distributed (data not shown), and so the
nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test
was used for data analysis.
Considering the cylinder comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U analysis (a=.05) defined which VPS and
PE measurements were significantly
different from the equivalent VPES
measurements. Comparing immediate-pour measurements, VPES was
significantly different from PE in only
2 of 6 measurements (P<.05) versus 5
of 6 measurements when compared to
VPS (P<.05) as shown in Figure 3. At
this time point, VPES had the closest
measurements to the metal model for
all measurements (Fig. 3).
For 1-day casts none of the VPS or
PE measurements were found to be
significantly different from VPES (Fig.
4). After 1-week storage, VPES cast
measurements were not significantly
different from VPS casts but were significantly different (smaller) from PE
in 2 of 6 measurements (P<.05) (Fig.
5). By 2 weeks, 50% of VPS measurements exhibited significant differences from the VPES measurements
(P<.05), indicating that VPS was
more accurate than VPES, whereas
none of the PE measurements were
significantly different (Fig. 6). Graphi-

176

Volume 109 Issue 3

0.2

1-Day Casts
A/D

B/C

AB/CD

BC

DA

AC/BD

Mean Percentage
Dimensional Change

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
VPES

-0.8

VPS
PE

-1
-1.2

Measurement

4 Mean percentage dimensional change values for measurements from 1-day

casts. Error bars represent standard deviation. No significant differences were
found to exist between VPES and VPS or PE for any of the measurements.
0.2

Mean Percentage
Dimensional Change

1-Week Casts
A/D

B/C

AB/CD

BC

DA

AC/BD

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
VPES

-1.2

VPS

-1.4

PE

-1.6
-1.8

Measurement

5 Mean percentage dimensional change values for measurements from

1-week casts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Statistically significant differences exist between VPES and PE for cylinder measurements B/C
(P=002) and anteroposterior AB/CD (P=.035). No significant differences
were found to exist between VPES and VPS.
0.2

Mean Percentage
Dimensional Change

2-Week Casts
A/D

B/C

AB/CD

BC

DA

AC/BD

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

VPES

-1

VPS
PE

-1.2
-1.4

Measurement

6 Mean percentage dimensional change values for measurements from 2-week

casts. Error bars represent standard deviation. Statistically significant differences exist between VPES and VPS for cylinder measurements B/C (P<.001), BC
(P=.019), and DA (P=.014). No significant differences were found to exist between VPES and PE for any of the measurements.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

cally it is evident that after 1-week

storage, VPES was still dimensionally
stable and appeared to be closer to
VPS in this respect than to PE. However, after 2-week storage, VPES appeared to be more like PE in terms of
dimensional stability than VPS, which
still exhibited the highest dimensional
stability, especially for the small cylinders (Fig. 6).

DISCUSSION

The null hypothesis was not rejected. Casts produced from a disinfected regular set VPES (EXAlence
370 monophase) demonstrated excellent dimensional stability at different pour times and were comparable
to the tested VPS and PE impression
materials.
Considering the dimensional changes of VPES at immediate pour and over
extended periods of time, the results of
this study showed that, similar to the
PE and VPS materials tested, EXAlence
370 monophase had minimal dimensional changes as shown by cast measurements, indicating that the material was accurate and dimensionally
stable. The majority of the specimens
experienced minimal changes (leading
to cast measurement changes equal
to or less than 0.34%) (Figs. 3-6).
VPES was introduced by the manufacturer as a combination of VPS and
PE. The manufacturer reports that it
has 5% to 20% polyether compound,
which is presumably responsible for
enhancing the hydrophilicity of the
impression material. The remainder
of the material, the VPS component,
consists of a combination of vinyldimethylpolysiloxane
(10%-50%),
methylhydrogen dimethylpolysiloxane (3%-10%) and silicon dioxide
(30%-65%). This combination is purported by the manufacturer to provide excellent elastic recovery and
good tear strength. Because of this
unique composition of VPS and PE,
it is reasonable to discuss VPES behavior using the established knowledge on these 2 categories of impression materials.

Nassar et al

177

March 2013
Except for one mean measurement, impressions from the 3 materials produced cast measurements that
were slightly larger than the control.
As explained by Wadhwani et al,16
the increased dimensions of the cast
cylinders could result from shrinkage that occurs freely in all directions
toward the center of the mass of the
material. In addition, the tray adhesive and mechanical tray retention
could cause the direction of shrinkage
to be toward the tray wall, in a buccolingual direction. If stone expansion is
considered, 2 comments are relevant.
The first is that the same Type V stone
was used in the same manner for all
impressions so that any expansion in
the casts would be uniform, regardless of impression material. However,
considering a study by Heshmati et
al17 on setting expansion of the Type
V stone, Die-Keen (Heraeus), a 0.35%
expansion of all casts means that the
true polymerization shrinkage of the
materials is in fact much less than the
values obtained in this study, which
means that the materials are more dimensionally stable.
The main reasons for dimensional
contraction in elastomeric materials
are polymerization shrinkage, loss of
volatile components, loss of water,
and lack of elastic recovery.19,20 Continuous evaporation of volatile substances from the polymerized elastomer likely explains the increase in
die size with longer storage periods.
In addition, as the polymerization
process continues, the material may
contract leading to larger cast dimensions.10,21 Because of the PE component of VPES, the absorption of water
from the surrounding environment
and disinfectant likely counteracted
the dimensional contraction for all
VPES measurements. This absorption could explain the combined A/D
cylinder measurements being smaller
than the metal model, resulting in the
positive value for the mean percentage dimensional change mentioned
above.7,10 As can be seen from Figures
3-6, the mean dimensional changes
of the large cylinders A/D are notice-

Nassar et al

ably less than those of the small cylinders B/C; this made their mean dimensional change closer to the metal
model measurements than the values
for B/C at all times and for all materials. While water absorption probably
counteracted the effect of dimensional contraction for all measurements,
it only resulted in a positive value for
cylinders A/D at the immediate time
point when VPES replicated the metal
model accurately.
It is interesting to note that the
cylinder diameter measurements resulted in larger percentage dimensional change values than those of
the anteroposterior and cross-arch
measurements (Figs. 3-6). More specifically, the smaller cylinders (B and
C) with a diameter of approximately
6.35 mm had the highest percentage
dimensional changes. Considering
that polymerization shrinkage affected all parts of the impression equally,
the removal of the metal block could
have caused extra plastic deformation
at the 4 cylinders. As a result, the cylinders, which have small dimensions
showed greater percentage changes
in comparison to the larger measurements. Wadhwani et al16 and Stober
et al22 explained that polymerization
shrinkage in the buccolingual dimension could be exaggerated because of
the use of tray adhesive and the rigid
tray retention. This makes sense in
this investigation since the cylinder diameter was measured buccolingually
in the same manner for all samples.
Another interesting aspect is related to PE, and hence the PE component of VPES. Lawson et al23 showed
that a hybrid material similar to VPES
experienced the least elastic recovery
compared to 5 VPS materials, possibly due to the incorporation of PE,
which was shown to produce lower
elastic recovery.24 Considering these
findings, the graphs in this study show
clearly that the percentage dimensional change decreased with time for
VPS but not for PE or VPES.
For immediate pour casts, VPES
was the most accurate (Fig. 3). However, although the percent dimension-

al changes of PE and VPES increased

slightly after 1-day storage compared
to immediate pour, the 3 materials
were not significantly different from
one another (Fig. 4). The rate of contraction of elastomers is not uniform
during the first 24 hours. Only half
the contraction occurs during the first
hour after making the impression.19
For the 1-week pour casts, not
surprisingly, storage diminished the
dimensional accuracy of PE, which
was significantly different than VPES
in cylinder measurements B/C and
anteroposterior measurements AB/
CD (Fig. 5). For the other measurements, however, PE maintained its
dimensional accuracy and was similar to VPES and VPS in this regard.
This confirms previous recommendations9,10 to pour PE within 24 hours,
which is clinically satisfactory and
convenient. The results of the MannWhitney U test show that VPES is not
significantly different from VPS for
any measurements at this time point,
indicating that VPES was as dimensionally accurate as VPS after 1 week.
If necessary, and based on this data,
delaying the pouring for up to 1 week
could be justified.
Following 2-week storage, VPS
was notably the most accurate of
the 3 materials (Fig. 6) and statistically different from VPES in 50% of
measurements. VPES and PE showed
similar results with no significant differences among all mean percentage dimensional change values. Thus
VPES behaves more like PE after 2
weeks. Although VPES changes were
not drastic to a degree that may affect it negatively, it seems reasonable
under the conditions of this study to
recommend pouring VPES earlier.
There were limitations to this
study. Instead of making direct measurements on the impression material, this study used casts to assess
the dimensional changes of VPES
indirectly by using custom trays and
adhesives in order to mimic clinical
situations. This indirect approach
may explain the variability in some of
the results. In order to facilitate mea-

178

Volume 109 Issue 3

surements with micrometers, the dies
were designed as parallel-sided cylinders rather than as a tapered tooth
preparation.
Only 1 variable was tested, but
several other aspects and test conditions should be studied in order to
confirm the stability of this material.
These include the gypsum compatibility, surface detail, and elastic recovery
of the several consistencies of VPES.

CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study
EXAlence 370 monophase impression material demonstrated comparable dimensional stability to the tested VPS and PE materials, and despite
the statistically significant differences
in the dimensions of some of the
cast measurements, its dimensional
changes were minor. Because of the
increased dimensional changes and
the related standard deviation for the
smaller cylinders at the 2-week pour
time, earlier pouring of the impressions should be encouraged whenever
possible.

REFERENCES
1. Corso M, Abanomy A, Di Canzio J,
Zurakowski D, Morgano SM. The effect of
temperature changes on the dimensional
stability of polyvinyl siloxane and polyether
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent
1998;79:626-31.
2. Seyedan K, Sazegara H, Kalalipour M, Alavi
K. Dimensional accuracy of polyether and
poly vinyl siloxane materials for different
implant impression technique. J Applied
Sciences 2008;3:257-63.

3. Pant R, Juszczyk AS, Clark RKF, Radford

DR. Long-term dimensional stability and
reproduction of surface detail of four polyvinyl siloxane duplicating materials. J Dent
2008;36:456-61.
4. Rios MP, Morgano SM, Stein RS, Rose L.
Effects of chemical disinfectant solutions
on the stability and accuracy of the dental
impression complex. J Prosthet Dent 1996;
76:356-62.
5. Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL.
Long-term dimensional stability of
three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil
1983;10:325-33.
6. Chen SY, Liang WM, Chen FN. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Dent 2004;32:603-9.
7. Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques.
Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:445-70.
8. Lacy MA, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendersen
MD. Time-dependent accuracy of elastomer impression materials. Part II: Polyether,
polysulfides and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329-33.
9. Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco
MT 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ.
Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: Influence of tray material, impression material,
and time. J Prosthodont 2002;11:98-108.
10.Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Endo T. Volatilization of components from and water
absorption of polyether impressions. J Dent
2006;34:134-8.
11.Walker MP, Petrie CS, Haj-Ali R, Spencer P,
Dumas C, Williams K. Moisture effect on
polyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction. J
Prosthodont 2005;14:158-63.
12.Johnson GH, Lepe X, Aw TC. The effect of
surface moisture on detail reproduction of
elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent
2003;90:354-64.
13.Petrie CS, Walker MP, OMahony AM,
Spencer P. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic
vinyl polysiloxane impression materials
tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:365-72.
14.Davies BA, Powers JM. Effect of immersion
disinfectant on properties of impression
materials. J Prosthodont 1994;3:31-4.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

15.Adabo GL, Zanarotti E, Fonseca RG, Cruz

CA. Effect of disinfectant agents on dimensional stability of elastomeric impression
materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:621-4.
16.Wadhwani CP, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Raigrodski AJ. Accuracy of newly formulated
fast-setting elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:530-9.
17.Heshmati RH, Nagy WW, Wirth CG, Dhuru
VB. Delayed linear expansion of improved
dental stone. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88:26-31.
18.Lepe X, Johnson GH, Berg JC, Aw TC,
Stroh GS. Wettability, imbibitions, and
mass change of disinfected low-viscosity
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent
2002;88:268-76.
19.Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craigs restorative dental materials. 13th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2012. p. 293.
20.Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: An update on clinical use.
Aust Dent J 1998;43:428-34.
21.Berg JC, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Adn-Plaza
S. Temperature effects on the rheological
properties of current polyether and polysiloxane impression materials during setting.
J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:150-61.
22.Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly formulated siloxanether
elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet
Dent 2010;103:228-39.
23.Lawson NC, Burgess JO, Litaker MS. Tensile
elastic recovery of elastomeric impression
materials. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:29-33.
24.Hondrum S. Tear and energy properties of
three impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:517-21.
Corresponding author:
Dr Usama Nassar
5-527 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9
CANADA
Fax: +780-492-1624
E-mail: unassar@ualberta.ca
Copyright 2013 by the Editorial Council for
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Nassar et al