Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays
Alex H Kang1, Glen H Johnson, Xavier Lepe
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7456, USA.
Statement Of Problem:
A common technique used for making crown impressions involves use of a vinyl polysiloxane impression material in combination with a dual-arch tray. A leading dental manufacturer has reformulated its vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression line, but the accuracy of the new material has not been verified.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of reformulated VPS impression materials using the single-step dual-arch impression technique.
Material And Methods:
Dual-arch impressions were made on a typodont containing a master stainless steel standard crown preparation die, from which gypsum working dies were formed, recovered, and measured. The impression materials evaluated were Imprint 3 Penta Putty with Quick Step Regular Body (IP-0); Imprint 3 Penta Quick Step Heavy Body with Quick Step Light Body (IP-1); Aquasil Ultra Rigid Fast Set with LV Fast Set (AQ-1); and Aquasil Ultra Heavy Fast Set with XLV Fast Set (AQ-2) (n=10). All impressions were disinfected with CaviCide spray for 10 minutes prior to pouring with type IV gypsum. Buccolingual (BL), mesiodistal (MD), and occlusogingival (OG) dimensions were measured and compared to the master die using an optical measuring microscope. Linear dimensional change was also assessed for IP-0 and AQ-1 at 1 and 24 hours based on ANSI/ADA Specification No. 19. Single-factor ANOVA with Dunnett's T3 multiple comparisons was used to compare BL, MD, and OG changes, with hypothesis testing at alpha=.05. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare linear dimensional changes.
Results:
There were statistical differences among the 4 impression systems for 3 of 4 dimensions of the master die. IP-0 working dies were significantly larger in MD and OG-L dimensions but significantly smaller in the BL dimension. IP-1 working dies were significantly smaller in the BL dimension compared to the master die. With the exception of IP-0, differences detected were small and clinically insignificant. No significant differences were observed for linear dimensional change.
Conclusions:
The single-step dual-arch impression technique produced working dies that were smaller in 3 of the 4 dimensions measured and may require additional die relief to achieve appropriate fit of cast restorations. Overall accuracy was acceptable for all impression groups with the exception of IP-0.
