Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness

Mary P. Walker, Nick Alderman, Cynthia S. Petrie, Jennifer Melander, Jacob Mcguire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Difficult impression removal has been linked to high rigidity and hardness of elastomeric impression materials. In response to this concern, manufacturers have reformulated their materials to reduce rigidity and hardness to decrease removal difficulty; however, the relationship between impression removal and rigidity or hardness has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a positive correlation between impression removal difficulty and rigidity or hardness of current elastomeric impression materials. Materials and Methods: Light- and medium-body polyether (PE), vinylpolysiloxane (VPS), and hybrid vinyl polyether siloxane (VPES) impression materials were tested (n = 5 for each material/consistency/test method). Rigidity (elastic modulus) was measured via tensile testing of dumbbell-shaped specimens (Die C, ASTM D412). Shore A hardness was measured using disc specimens according to ASTM D2240-05 test specifications. Impressions were also made of a custom stainless steel model using a custom metal tray that could be attached to a universal tester to measure associated removal force. Within each impression material consistency, one-factor ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc analyses (α = 0.05) were used to compare rigidity, hardness, and removal force of the three types of impression materials. A Pearson's correlation (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate the association between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness. Results: With medium-body materials, VPS exhibited significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) rigidity and hardness than VPES or PE, while PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES impressions. With light-body materials, VPS again demonstrated significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) hardness than VPES or PE, while the rigidity of the light-body materials did not significantly differ between materials (p > 0.05); however, just as with the medium-body materials, light-body PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES. Moreover, there was no positive correlation (p > 0.05) between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness with either medium- or light-body materials. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)362-366
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Prosthodontics
Volume22
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013

Fingerprint

Hardness
Light
elastomeric
Elastic Modulus
Stainless Steel
Analysis of Variance
Metals
vinyl polysiloxane

Keywords

  • Elastic modulus
  • Flexibility
  • Impression removal force
  • Polyether
  • Stiffness
  • Vinyl polyether siloxane
  • Vinylpolysiloxane

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness. / Walker, Mary P.; Alderman, Nick; Petrie, Cynthia S.; Melander, Jennifer; Mcguire, Jacob.

In: Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 22, No. 5, 01.07.2013, p. 362-366.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Walker, Mary P. ; Alderman, Nick ; Petrie, Cynthia S. ; Melander, Jennifer ; Mcguire, Jacob. / Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness. In: Journal of Prosthodontics. 2013 ; Vol. 22, No. 5. pp. 362-366.
@article{8bbf56dacbaa463bb9c2977b5bb2f9b1,
title = "Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness",
abstract = "Purpose: Difficult impression removal has been linked to high rigidity and hardness of elastomeric impression materials. In response to this concern, manufacturers have reformulated their materials to reduce rigidity and hardness to decrease removal difficulty; however, the relationship between impression removal and rigidity or hardness has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a positive correlation between impression removal difficulty and rigidity or hardness of current elastomeric impression materials. Materials and Methods: Light- and medium-body polyether (PE), vinylpolysiloxane (VPS), and hybrid vinyl polyether siloxane (VPES) impression materials were tested (n = 5 for each material/consistency/test method). Rigidity (elastic modulus) was measured via tensile testing of dumbbell-shaped specimens (Die C, ASTM D412). Shore A hardness was measured using disc specimens according to ASTM D2240-05 test specifications. Impressions were also made of a custom stainless steel model using a custom metal tray that could be attached to a universal tester to measure associated removal force. Within each impression material consistency, one-factor ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc analyses (α = 0.05) were used to compare rigidity, hardness, and removal force of the three types of impression materials. A Pearson's correlation (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate the association between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness. Results: With medium-body materials, VPS exhibited significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) rigidity and hardness than VPES or PE, while PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES impressions. With light-body materials, VPS again demonstrated significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) hardness than VPES or PE, while the rigidity of the light-body materials did not significantly differ between materials (p > 0.05); however, just as with the medium-body materials, light-body PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES. Moreover, there was no positive correlation (p > 0.05) between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness with either medium- or light-body materials. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty.",
keywords = "Elastic modulus, Flexibility, Impression removal force, Polyether, Stiffness, Vinyl polyether siloxane, Vinylpolysiloxane",
author = "Walker, {Mary P.} and Nick Alderman and Petrie, {Cynthia S.} and Jennifer Melander and Jacob Mcguire",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jopr.12011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "362--366",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness

AU - Walker, Mary P.

AU - Alderman, Nick

AU - Petrie, Cynthia S.

AU - Melander, Jennifer

AU - Mcguire, Jacob

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Purpose: Difficult impression removal has been linked to high rigidity and hardness of elastomeric impression materials. In response to this concern, manufacturers have reformulated their materials to reduce rigidity and hardness to decrease removal difficulty; however, the relationship between impression removal and rigidity or hardness has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a positive correlation between impression removal difficulty and rigidity or hardness of current elastomeric impression materials. Materials and Methods: Light- and medium-body polyether (PE), vinylpolysiloxane (VPS), and hybrid vinyl polyether siloxane (VPES) impression materials were tested (n = 5 for each material/consistency/test method). Rigidity (elastic modulus) was measured via tensile testing of dumbbell-shaped specimens (Die C, ASTM D412). Shore A hardness was measured using disc specimens according to ASTM D2240-05 test specifications. Impressions were also made of a custom stainless steel model using a custom metal tray that could be attached to a universal tester to measure associated removal force. Within each impression material consistency, one-factor ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc analyses (α = 0.05) were used to compare rigidity, hardness, and removal force of the three types of impression materials. A Pearson's correlation (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate the association between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness. Results: With medium-body materials, VPS exhibited significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) rigidity and hardness than VPES or PE, while PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES impressions. With light-body materials, VPS again demonstrated significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) hardness than VPES or PE, while the rigidity of the light-body materials did not significantly differ between materials (p > 0.05); however, just as with the medium-body materials, light-body PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES. Moreover, there was no positive correlation (p > 0.05) between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness with either medium- or light-body materials. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty.

AB - Purpose: Difficult impression removal has been linked to high rigidity and hardness of elastomeric impression materials. In response to this concern, manufacturers have reformulated their materials to reduce rigidity and hardness to decrease removal difficulty; however, the relationship between impression removal and rigidity or hardness has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a positive correlation between impression removal difficulty and rigidity or hardness of current elastomeric impression materials. Materials and Methods: Light- and medium-body polyether (PE), vinylpolysiloxane (VPS), and hybrid vinyl polyether siloxane (VPES) impression materials were tested (n = 5 for each material/consistency/test method). Rigidity (elastic modulus) was measured via tensile testing of dumbbell-shaped specimens (Die C, ASTM D412). Shore A hardness was measured using disc specimens according to ASTM D2240-05 test specifications. Impressions were also made of a custom stainless steel model using a custom metal tray that could be attached to a universal tester to measure associated removal force. Within each impression material consistency, one-factor ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc analyses (α = 0.05) were used to compare rigidity, hardness, and removal force of the three types of impression materials. A Pearson's correlation (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate the association between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness. Results: With medium-body materials, VPS exhibited significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) rigidity and hardness than VPES or PE, while PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES impressions. With light-body materials, VPS again demonstrated significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) hardness than VPES or PE, while the rigidity of the light-body materials did not significantly differ between materials (p > 0.05); however, just as with the medium-body materials, light-body PE impressions required significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) removal force than VPS or VPES. Moreover, there was no positive correlation (p > 0.05) between impression removal force and rigidity or hardness with either medium- or light-body materials. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that high impression material rigidity and hardness are not predictors of impression removal difficulty.

KW - Elastic modulus

KW - Flexibility

KW - Impression removal force

KW - Polyether

KW - Stiffness

KW - Vinyl polyether siloxane

KW - Vinylpolysiloxane

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880597036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880597036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jopr.12011

DO - 10.1111/jopr.12011

M3 - Article

C2 - 23387301

AN - SCOPUS:84880597036

VL - 22

SP - 362

EP - 366

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 5

ER -