Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2026

Applying Permanent, Robust Stenciled Patterns of Fine Particles to Elastomeric Surfaces
Published on: July 8, 2025
The effect of surface moisture on detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions
Glen H Johnson1, Xavier Lepe, Tar Chee Aw
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Box 357456, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7456, USA. gjohnson@u.washington.edu
Statement Of Problem:
Monophase and dual-viscosity impression techniques are available with little knowledge of which one might render better quality under wet and dry surface conditions.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to determine whether type of material, viscosity selection, and presence of moisture affect detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions.
Materials And Methods:
Single-viscosity systems were polyether (Impregum Penta) and vinyl polysiloxanes (President MonoBody, Extrude MPV, and Aquasil). Dual-viscosity systems included polyether (Impregum Penta/Permadyne Garant) and vinyl polysiloxanes (Dimension Penta H/Dimension Garant L, Extrude Extra/Extrude Wash, and Aquasil/Aquasil LV). Impressions were made of a surface analyzer calibration standard possessing a uniform "saw-tooth" pattern with a mean roughness (Ra) of 2.87 mum, which was one fourth of the peak-to-valley height. Each of the 8 impression groups was subjected to dry (control) and wet conditions. The wet condition consisted of 3 mL of distilled water applied to the surface of the standard but allowed to escape during the procedure. Eighty impressions were made, 5 for each test group. After setting, the surface of each impression was scanned at 5 locations using a Surfanalyzer 4000. A 3-factor ANOVA and Student-Newman-Kuels test were used to analyze the data (alpha=.05).
Results:
There were significant differences between polyether and vinyl polysiloxane materials, dual and monophase techniques, and the 2 surface conditions (P<.05). Cross-product interactions were not significant, allowing comparison of mean values for each factor. The mean Ra for single viscosity was 2.21 mum versus 1.67 mum for dual viscosity; polyether was 2.12 mum versus 1.89 mum for addition silicone; and under dry conditions, the mean was 2.04 mum versus 1.86 mum for wet conditions.
Conclusion:
Single-viscosity systems reproduced the standard saw-tooth pattern better than the dual-viscosity systems, as did polyether impression materials compared to addition silicones. Moisture led to a lower Ra or less detail compared to dry conditions.
Related Concept Videos
Porosity and Absorption of Aggregate
When all pores in an aggregate are filled with water, the aggregate is considered saturated and surface-dry. If left in dry air, water will evaporate until the aggregate...
Curing Methods

