Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2026
05:30
Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Surface detail reproduction with new elastomeric dental impression materials
Masafumi Kanehira1, Werner J Finger, Masashi Komatsu
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Operative Dentistry, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan.
Quintessence International (Berlin, Germany : 1985)
|July 13, 2007
Summary
Two polyether, one hybrid, and one polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material were tested for dentin surface reproduction and wettability. Impregum Garant L DuoSoft (IMP), Senn Light (SEN), and Flexitime Correct Flow (FLE) accurately reproduced dentin, while P2 Polyether (P2L) did not cure.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Impression Materials Technology
- Surface Reproduction Analysis
Background:
- Accurate impression materials are crucial for precise dental restorations.
- Evaluating the surface detail reproduction and wettability of various impression materials on dentin is essential for clinical success.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the surface detail reproduction of two polyether, one polyether-polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) hybrid, and one PVS impression material on prepared dentin.
- To determine the wettability of these non-set and set impression materials.
Main Methods:
- Light-bodied impression materials (P2L, IMP, SEN, FLE) were used to create impressions of air-dried and wet dentin.
- Surface roughness (Rz, Ra) was measured on dentin specimens and impressions.
- Wettability was assessed using an optical contact-angle measuring device for non-set and set materials.
Main Results:
- Impregum Garant L DuoSoft (IMP), Senn Light (SEN), and Flexitime Correct Flow (FLE) demonstrated excellent surface detail reproduction on dentin.
- P2 Polyether (P2L) exhibited inhibited curing on both dry and wet dentin surfaces.
- Non-set IMP showed good wettability (<45 degrees), while non-set SEN, FLE, and P2L had higher initial contact angles (>90 degrees).
Conclusions:
- IMP, SEN, and FLE are suitable for accurate dentin impression taking.
- P2L is not recommended for direct use on dentin due to curing inhibition.
- All tested materials demonstrated reasonable wettability on moist surfaces.
