Polyvinyl siloxanes in dentistry: an overview.

Sensitive Teeth Relief

colgatesensitive.co.in
With New Pro-Argin technology, use Colgate
Sensitive Pro-relief now!


Link to this page
Introduction

Historically, various impression materials are used to record intraoral structures for the
fabrication of definitive restorations. Impression materials too have gone through a
tremendous phase of development. Knowing the physical and biological properties as
well as the advantages and disadvantages of different impression materials, is a
prerequisite for adequate practical application of dental materials and contributes to the
success of prosthetic therapy. In the 1950s the rubber base materials, first in the form of
the polysulfide and later the silicone, polyether began to be used as dental impression
materials [1]. Elastomers are a group of elastic impression materials. General reviews of
rubber impression materials by Craig (1977), Harcourt (1978), and McCabe and Storer
(1980) have been published, as have a status report on polyethers (Council on Dental
Materials and Devices, 1977) and an appraisal of addition silicone impression materials
(McCabe and Wilson, 1978). There are four groups of Elastomers: polysulfides,
polyethers, condensation and addition silicones. Addition silicones (polyvinylsiloxanes)
have a moderately low-molecular weight silicone that contains silane groups that bind
together in a network of chains that give material a rubber consistency. Polyvinyl siloxane
(PVS) impression materials represent the state of the art in elastomeric impression
materials in prosthodontics and restorative dentistry [2-5] used for recording the
impressions of dentulous and edentulous arches, duplication of casts and bite
registrations. Recently, new elastomeric impression materials with very high elastic
recovery and high tear strength have been introduced.


Composition and chemistry of Polyvinyl siloxane

Polyvinylsiloxane (or PVS) is often called 'viny polysiloxane' (or VPS) as well. Since it is
based on silicone chemistry, it has sometimes been referred to as an addition-silicone.
Amorphous polymers of silicone and oxygen atoms (Fig 1) which are randomly coiled like
spaghetti, (Fig 2) translucent or transparent because of the lack of crystallinity, tend to be
flexible rather than brittle. Polyvinyl siloxane materials are a modification of the original
condensation silicones. Both are based on the polydimethyl siloxane polymer; however
the presence of differing terminal group's accounts for their different curing reactions [6].
Elastic properties can be obtained by cross linking and addition of the long chains. These
oligomers are double-bond-functional silicones which become polymerized by free
radicals from chloroplatinic acid.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The base material contains a polymethyl hydrogen siloxane copolymer, which is a
moderately low molecular mass polymer with silane terminal groups [6, 7]. The
accelerator material contains the vinyl-terminated polydimethyl siloxane. This is also a
moderately low molecular mass polymer but has vinyl terminal groups [6, 7]. The
accelerator material also contains chloroplatinic acid as a homogeneous metal complex
catalyst [8-10]. The mixture is filled with silica because that is the only thing with the right
degree of hydrophilicity to be blended into the material. Polyvinylsiloxanes (PVS), used
as dental impression materials, were formulated with the variation of loading combination
of six types of fillers including nano-sized fumed silica. The fillers were blended with three
types of silicone polymers together with cross-linker and inhibitor in base paste and with
plasticizer and platinum catalyst in catalyst paste. By replacing parts of crystalline quartz
with other fillers, the setting time became much faster. The test group in which quarter of
quartz was replaced with fumed silica showed the most ideal working and setting time for
clinical use. There was a negative correlation between pH and setting time (p < 0.05).
Combining the fumed silica was effective in increasing the viscosity, tensile strength and
maximum% strain. Combining the diatomaceous earth reduced the setting time and
maximum% strain, and dramatically increased the viscosity and tensile strength. The
best modulation of physical properties of PVS material was possible by combining fillers
during the formulation. The base and accelerator pastes also contain fillers. Amorphous
silica or fluorocarbons are used as fillers to add bulk and improve the properties of the
paste. The filler is also normally silanated to increase the bond strength between filler
and polymer, which better allows it to function as across--linker [11]. Colouring agents
are added to distinguish the base and catalyst pastes and to aid evaluation of mixing.
More recently, intrinsic surfactants have also been added in an attempt to negate the
hydrophobicity of these materials[12].Compositions are proprietary however they are
usually supplied in two equal-size tubes, often in cartridges for use in an automix
dispenser gun. The base-to-catalyst ratio is 1:1. Newer addition silicones have been
formulated to be more hydrophilic. Shelf life is usually about 2 years but is reduced by
warm conditions.
#1 Hyper-V VM Backup
altaro.com/free-hyper-v-backup
Easy & Fast Hyper-V VM Backup Free for 2 VMs. Download now!




Setting Reaction

Poly vinyl siloxane + silane siloxane--Pt, Salt [right arrow] silicone rubber

On mixing, an addition reaction occurs between the silane and vinyl groups (Fig 3).
There is crosslinking of a vinyl terminated polydimethyl siloxane catalyzed by a platinum
salt (chloroplatinic acid). Hydrogen gas is a byproduct of the polymerization reaction.
Several authors have reported hydrogen gas bubble formation on the surface of gypsum
dies poured immediately from polyvinyl siloxane impressions [3, 13]. Hydroxide groups in
many products produce hydrogen gas, resulting in small bubbles on the model surface
(Fig-4) if pouring is not delayed by 30-60 minutes. Many of these addition silicones
contain catalysts like palladium that absorb this hydrogen. Manufacturers have now
eliminated the possibility of this side reaction by proper purification and accurate
proportioning of the materials, and by the addition of palladium to the pastes as a
hydrogen absorber [9, 10]. It is no longer necessary to wait for one hour before pouring
these impressions.

Retardation of the setting reaction of addition silicones can occur if they come into
contact with latex gloves or other rubber products. This was first encountered when putty
consistency addition silicones were mixed with gloved hands. Slowing of the setting time
may even result from contact of the impression material with the patient's teeth after the
operator has touched the teeth with his gloves. It is theorized that residual sulfur in the
gloves (which serves as an accelerator and/or surfactant in the manufacture of rubber
latex) inhibits the action of the platinum salt catalyst [14]. Some researchers believe that
it is the powder on gloves that is the source of the problem, but others question this [15].
In addition, sulfur-containing retraction cord additives such as ferric sulfate (found in
Astringent) and aluminum sulfate may also produce this effect. Gloves and the inhibition
of polymerization occasionally an inhibition or retarding effect is seen on
polyvinlsiloxanes when they are used in a clinical setting. This phenomenon can occur
after direct contact between the impression material and latex gloves, or a region of the
mucosa previously touched by latex gloves [15, 16, 17, 18, 19].

Actors wallpapers 2014
google.co.in/Wallpaper
Wallpapers of the hottest 2014 stars. Find it instantly on Google!




[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

It was initially suspected that the corn starch powder used as a lubricant in the gloves
was interacting [17] while other authors suggested atmospheric oxygen inhibition, or
interactions with haemostatic agents were the cause. Several haemostatic agents were
tested before DeCamargo et al [20] concluded that they were not the inhibitors. Jones et
al [21] were able to show that provisional luting agents did not interfere with the
polymerization. A sulphur compound has since been identified as being responsible for
the retarding effect on polymerization. Zinc diethyl dithiocarbamate is an accelerator
used in the manufacture of the latex gloves. It reacts with the platinum catalyst in the
polyvinyl siloxane to cause a delay or total inhibition of polymerization [15, 19, 22]
reported that even in concentrations as low as 0.005 per cent, total inhibition of
polymerization of polyvinyl siloxane can be observed. It is also believed that the
compound can remain on a previously gloved hand, and so washing gloves or washing
hands after glove use is not recommended as a means of avoiding contamination.
Interestingly, not all latex gloves will cause an inhibition of set. It has been observed that
synthetic latex gloves do not produce this phenomenon, while some natural latex gloves
do [18, 19, 23].

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages: Excellent dimensional stability, good tear strength, good working and setting
times, excellent wettability, automixed system(Figure-5), short setting time, adequate tear
strength, extremely high accuracy, minimal distortion on removal, dimensionally stable
even after 1 week, If hydrophilic, good compatibility with gypsum. There are no reports of
patient sensitivity to the addition silicones.

Disadvantages: Hydrogen gas release, inhibition of setting by sulfur-containing materials,
expensive, Hydrophobic & hence requires a very dry field.

Each group of material has its advantages and disadvantages [24]. Their main
advantages are low polymerization shrinkage, long-lasting dimensional stability and
endurance, and an absence of toxic or allergenic behaviors [25-29].Impression detail
(Figure 6&7)is influenced by factors such as viscosity, wettability [30-35], handling
properties [36-38], and the presence of voids [39-43]. Two principal characteristics of the
impression material are accuracy and dimensional stability [44-47].

Properties

Viscosity

Polyvinyl siloxanes are available in viscosities ranging from very low (for pouring,
syringing or wash use), to medium, high and very high. The viscosity of the material
increases with the proportion of filler present. Viscosity is also affected by the shear force
placed on the material. The mixed base and catalyst pastes exhibit a decrease in their
relative viscosities in response to high shear stresses. This is termed shear thinning.
Thus a medium body impression material can possess sufficient viscosity to avoid
excess flow if loaded into an impression tray, yet it can also exhibit an apparent lowered
viscosity suitable for intrasulcular impressions, when it is expressed through an
impression syringe tip. [7, 48]. The higher the viscosity of the material, the more
pronounced is the effect of shear thinning. This phenomenon is suggested to be due to
the extremely small filler particle size. [48]

Working and setting times

Modern polyvinyl siloxanes have a working time of two minutes and a setting time of six
minutes (with slight variation) [3, 13]. They are more sensitive to temperature than
polysulfide, can be extended by cooling or adding retarder. Ratio of base: Accelerator
does not change working & setting time. These times are considered to be adequate if
not ideal. Occasionally, situations will present which require extended working times and
some methods of altering working and setting times have been reported in the literature.
Alteration of the proportion of catalyst is to be avoided as this leads to variable results
and has been suggested to facilitate the side reaction which produces hydrogen gas.
Some manufacturers supply a retarder that can be incorporated into the mix to provide
additional working time without compromising other properties [3].

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The retarder is a small, reactive, tetracyclic vinyl molecule that polymerizes preferentially
to the siloxane copolymers. This small molecule is cyclic and does not form a chain. It is
thus a chain stopper, and temporarily prevents polymerization of the linear siloxane
molecules. The retarder continues to polymerize until it is completely consumed and then
the linear siloxane molecules polymerize causing the impression material to set. The
most convenient and widely advocated method for extending working time is to
refrigerate the materials before mixing. Gains of up to 90 seconds have been reported
when the materials are chilled to 2[degrees]C [3, 49]. It is a good idea to store the
addition silicones in a refrigerator and use them immediately after removal because the
cool storage conditions act to lengthen the working time by about 1.5 minutes without
adversely affecting the material's accuracy.

Reproduction of detail

Polyvinyl siloxanes are currently considered to reproduce the greatest detail of all the
impression materials. The international standard for dental elastomeric impression
materials1 states that a type III (light body) impression material must reproduce a line
0.020 mm in width. With the exception of the very high viscosity putty materials, all
polyvinyl siloxanes (light, medium and heavy body) achieve this. Very low viscosity
materials can reproduce lines 1-2 um wide [7, 50, 51]. Further, PVS materials have the
best fine detail reproduction and elastic recovery of all available materials.[52]. It should
be noted that the literature does not tend to support the use of putty and wash
impression techniques for greatest accuracy in impressions. Wassell and Ibbetson [53]
reported that heavy body and wash impressions were more accurate than putty and
wash impressions. Frederick and Caputo [54] further showed that the putty and wash
technique was significantly less accurate than polyether (heavy and light body) or
reversible hydrocolloid impressions.

Dimensional stability

The accuracy of an impression material is dependent on the dimensional stability. There
are a number of possible causes for dimensional changes in elastomeric impression
materials. The major factors affecting the dimensional change of the impression are
thermal contraction, polymerization shrinkage, and contraction due to the loss of volatile
by products [55]. Polyvinyl siloxanes show the smallest dimensional changes on setting
of all the elastomeric impression materials. Long term dimensional stability of
polyvinylsiloxanes is reported in the literature. This is because they are not susceptible to
changes in humidity, and they do not undergo any further chemical reactions or release
any by-products. [3,6,7,13,52,56,57,58]. Tjan et al [59] evaluated the accuracy of
monophase polyvinyl silicones and found that repeat pour at later time periods, did not
affect the dimensional accuracy and stability of impression made with these materials.
Polyvinyl siloxane impressions may be repoured to produce stone dies which are as
accurate as the original, as many as seven days later [58]. The linear coefficient of
thermal contraction is relatively high for all elastomers. When an impression is removed
from the mouth, there is an element of shrinkage due to the decrease in temperature that
occurs as the material moves from the mouth to the bench. Lower viscosity materials
show the greatest change (0.02-0.05 per cent shrinkage) due to their lower filler
content[56].Reheating an impression to 37[degrees]C before pouring has been
demonstrated to improve the accuracy of the resultant die; however it is doubtful that this
is clinically significant. [49,56] The addition silicones have excellent dimensional stability
with shrinkage over 24 hours of only 0.05%.

Tear energy, elastic recovery and deformation

Polyvinyl siloxanes are frequently reported to be the most ideally elastic impression
materials because they exhibit better elastic recovery and less permanent deformation
than the other elastomers. They can absorb over three times more energy up to the point
of permanent deformation than other elastomers, and if elongated to over 100 per cent
(strain at tear), they rebound to only 0.6 percent permanent deformation [60]. Permanent
deformation is related to the degree of cross-linking of the polymer strands, temperature,
and the rate of applied stress. The ideal impression material should exhibit maximum
energy absorption with minimal distortion. However, it is also desirable that the material
tears rather than deforms past a critical point such as a margin. Polyvinyl siloxanes
deform at much slower rates and tear at points of less permanent deformation than do
the other elastomeric materials [60]. Blomberg et al [61] reported that polyvinyl siloxanes
have sufficient elastic recovery to allow an impression to be poured only six minutes after
removal from the mouth.

Marcinak and Draughn[62] evaluated the dimensional change in addition silicones by
delaying the pouring of impressions from 2 h to one week. They concluded that these
materials remained remarkably accurate even after one week, with the greatest change
at any time being 0.3%. Lacy et al [27] investigated the time dependant accuracy of
elastomeric impression materials and concluded that polyvinyl siloxanes were the most
stable of elastomers.

Creep compliance

All elastomers are viscoelastic materials, implying that deformation and elastic recovery
are time dependent as well. Therefore, the longer the material is deformed (as occurs
when impressions are removed slowly from the mouth or separated slowly from a poured
model), then the longer time it takes for elastic recovery and the possibility of permanent
deformation becomes higher. Polyvinyl siloxanes have the least viscoelastic qualities
thus requiring the least time for recovery from viscoelastic deformation.

Radiopacity

Radiopacity of impression materials is important for radiographic identification of excess
material which may be accidentally swallowed, aspirated or left in gingival tissues.
Presently, only the polysulphide materials exhibit significant radiopacity due to their lead
dioxide content. Shillingburg et al [63] tested an experimental polyvinyl siloxane material
containing 20 per cent barium sulphate to improve radiopacity. Although they were able
to demonstrate qualities of radiopacity equal to that of the polysulphides, there were
associated physical property drawbacks including hydrogen bubble formation in dies
poured from the impressions, and evidence of long term breakdown limiting the shelf life.

Wettability

An impression material should have intimate contact with the tooth and underlying soft
tissues and should not form bubbles or voids. Wettability is best with a hydrophilic
material. Material should possess ability to displace moisture. According to O'Brien,
wetting describes the relative affinity of a liquid for a solid. It is the degree to which a drop
will spread on a solid surface, and can be quantified by observing the contact angle. High
angles (greater than ninety degrees) indicate poor wetting, whilst a zero angle would
indicate perfect wetting of the surface. Early forms of the addition silicones were
hydrophobic, however most now available are hydrophilic because of inclusion of
surfactants which reduce their contact angles with gypsum from approximately 90 to 50
degrees. This makes their contact angles with gypsum similar to those of the hydrophilic
polyethers. [64]

When discussing the wetting characteristics of impression materials, it is important to
distinguish between the ability of the material to flow around the soft and hard tissues of
the mouth, and the ability of the material to be wet by gypsum slurry. Polyvinyl siloxanes
are inherently hydrophobic, however in recent times; new 'hydrophilic' polyvinyl siloxanes
have been introduced with manufacturer claims that they better wet moist dental
surfaces. These new formulations have intrinsic surfactants added. Typically these are
non-ionic surfactants of phenoxypolyethanol homologues [65-69]. There is no scientific
evidence to indicate that polyvinyl siloxanes advertised as 'hydrophilic' can be syringed
into a wet sulcus for an accurate impression [50, 65, 66]. It has also been shown that the
newer hydrophilic materials perform no better than the original formulations of polyvinyl
siloxane in wettability for pouring dies, if a compatible, extrinsic, spray-on surfactant is
applied before pouring [65, 66].

This has been confirmed by Takahashi and Finger [70] who demonstrated that under a
simulated clinically dry field, both the hydrophilic and original f ormulations of polyvinyl
siloxane wet tooth structure with equal results. The application of an extrinsic surfactant
to the surface against which an impression is to be made has also been suggested.
Millar and co-workers [71] reported a significant reduction in the number of voids and an
overall increased quality of polyvinyl siloxane impression when a modified polydimethyl
siloxane wetting agent was applied to the prepared tooth surfaces before impressions
were made.

Impression trays and adhesives

VPS adhesives (blue) for polyvinyl siloxane impression materials

The improved physical properties of modern elastomers and particularly
polyvinylsiloxanes the use of stock trays for impressions has become common practice
for reasons of cost and convenience [59]. Common stock trays made of polystyrene or
chromium plated brass are reported to be suitably stiff to prevent flexure or distortion,
although there remains some possibility of tray wall flexure with polystyrene trays[38,53].
The use of adhesives in trays has been shown to achieve higher material bond strengths
for polyvinyl siloxanes than has mechanical retention [72, 73]. The adhesives used are
usually polydimethyl siloxane and ethylsilicate. The adhesive reacts with the surface of
the tray material and forms a chemical bond to the tray and to the impression material. It
is generally recommended to wait for ten to fifteen minutes after application of the
adhesive before making the impression [73].This allows time for the solvent to react with
the tray material.

Chai et al. [38] reported that adhesive strength to acrylic resin (custom trays) was
significantly lower than polystyrene or metal stock trays for the polyvinyl siloxanes.
Investigations into their bond strengths with polyvinyl siloxane adhesives indicate that
they bond better than polymethyl methacrylate materials provided that the air inhibited
non-polymerized layer is removed with isopropyl alcohol or a carbide bur [72,74]. Sulong
and Setchell [75] demonstrated that roughening the surface of the impression tray will
significantly improve the effectiveness of polyvinyln siloxane adhesives.. In many clinical
situations, the impression tray must be tried in the mouth prior to impression making and
this leads to saliva contamination. If the tray has already been painted with adhesive,
then subsequent application is recommended to maintain bond strengths. Contaminated
adhesives have shown a drop in bond strength to one-fifth of their original amount.

Disinfection

Disinfection is the inhibition or destruction of pathogens and can be achieved by
immersion of an impression into antimicrobial chemical solutions for 3 to 90 minutes
depending on the agent. Sterilization is the total elimination of all micro-organisms and
spores and requires immersion periods of 6 to 10 hours. Herrera and Merchant [76]
tested the dimensional stability of different impression materials following immersion
disinfection for thirty minutes. They observed that polyvinyl siloxane and polysulphide
were unaffected after immersion in sodium hypochlorite, 2 per cent glutaraldehyde, 0.5
per cent povidone-iodine and 0.16 per cent halogenated phenol whilst polyethers were
significantly unstable. Even after extending the immersion times to sixty minutes, Del
Pilar Rios et al [77] agreed with the findings of Herrera and Merchant. Johansen and
Stackhouse [78] demonstrated that polyvinyl siloxanes were able to be immersed in 2 per
cent glutaraldehyde for 16 hours without any observed dimensional changes, whilst
polyether materials showed dramatic distortions under the same conditions. Holtan et al.
[79] measured the dimensional stability of polyvinylsiloxanes after sterilization
procedures using a conventional steam autoclave, and an ethylene oxide gas autoclave.
They determined that sterilization in ethylene oxide gas resulted in gas inclusions into the
impression material which then formed bubbles in dies poured immediately from them.
Waiting to pour dies for 24 hours after gas autoclaving prevented this problem.
Impressions sterilized in the steam autoclave did undergo distortion that would have
been significant enough to prevent a casting from seating. It was concluded that steam
autoclaving was a suitable sterilization method if the impressions were not to be used for
fixed prostheses.

Most recently, radiofrequency glow discharging has been advocated for use as a
disinfecting procedure for polyvinyl siloxane impressions [80]. Whilst this procedure is
claimed to clean and improve the wettability of the impression surface, it is not clear if
glow discharging results in sterilization.

In Future

Continued efforts will be made to develop more effective single-viscosity addition silicone
systems, probably by controlling the filler particle size and wettability of the filler by the
silicone. Hydrophilic addition silicones should be developed further in order to improve
the taking of impressions and pouring of casts. Because of the convenience and
reduction in the number of voids, development of automatic mixing systems, static and/or
mechanical, will continue. With the development of information on the visible curing
composites of the BISGMA and urethane diacrylate, the commercial availability of visible-
curing rubber impression materials is almost a certainty; the essentially unlimited working
time at constant viscosity would be a major advantage for this type of system. The
increased emphasis on disinfection of impressions will stimulate the development of
systems that will disinfect polyethers without causing problems with dimensional change.

Conclusion

Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials are routinely used to record the impressions of
dentulous and edentulous mouths. The composition has been changing from time to time
to improve the clinical performance. It is evident that all materials change dimensionally
over time. The present review suggests that addition silicones to a certain extent were
helpful in improving their clinical performance and extending the use of the material in
various dental applications.

References

[1.] Charbeneau GT: Principles and practice of operative dentistry. Philadelphia, Lea and
Febiger, p 376, 1988.

[2.] Craig RG, Sun Z. Trends in elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 1994;
19:138-145.

[3.] Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: A review of
properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent1992; 68: 728-732.

[4.] Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and
techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48: 445-470.

[5.] Perakis N, Belser UC, Magne P. Final impressions: A review of material properties
and description of a current technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24: 109-
117.

[6.] Van Noort R. Introduction to dental materials. Spain: Mosby, 1994.

[7.] Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 9th edn. St Louis: Mosby, 1993.

[8.] Williams JR, Craig RG. Physical properties of addition silicones as a function of
composition. J Oral Rehabil 1988; 15:639-50.

[9.] Craig RG, O'Brien WJ, Powers JM. Dental materials. Properties and manipulation.
6th edn. St Louis: Mosby, 1996.

[10.] O' Brien WJ. Dental materials. Properties and selection. Chicago: Quintessence
Books, 1989.

[11.] Williams JR, Craig RG. Physical properties of addition silicones as a function of
composition. J Oral Rehabil 1988; 15:639-50.

[12.] Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, Munoz CA, Moore KB. Hydrophilic poly
(vinyl siloxane) impression materials: dimensional accuracy, wettability, and effect on
gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:240 8.

[13.] International Standards Organization. Dental elastomeric impression material. ISO
4823-1992. Section 5.11 Detail reproduction. Stand alone document. Chicago: American
Dental Association Department of Standards Administration, 1992.

[14.] Cook WD, Thomas F. Rubber gloves and addition silicone impression materials.
Aust Dent J 1986; 3:140-144.

[15.] Kahn RL, Donovan TE, Chee WW. Interaction of gloves and rubber dam with a poly
(vinyl siloxane) impression material: a screening test. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2:342-346.

[16.] Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of addition silicones as a function of technique. J
Prosthet Dent 1986; 55: 197- 203.

[17.] Duncan JD. Prevention of catalyst contamination of vinyl polysiloxane silicone
impression material during the impression procedure. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66:277.

[18.] Rosen M, Touyz LZG, Becker PJ. The effect of latex gloves on setting time of vinyl
polysiloxane putty impression material. Br Dent J 1989; 166:374-5.

[19.] Baumann MA. The influence of dental gloves on the setting of impression materials.
Br Dent J 1995; 179:130-5.

[20.] De Camargo LM, Chee WW, Donovan TE. Inhibition of polymerisation of polyvinyl
siloxanes by medicaments used on gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1993;
70:44-7.

[21.] Jones RH, Cook GS, Moon MG. Effect of provisional luting agents on polyvinyl
siloxane impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75:3603.

[22.] Causton BE, Burke FJT, Wilson NHF. Implications of the presence of
dithiocarbamate in latex glove s. Dent Mat e r 1993; 9:209-13.

[23.] Chee WWL, Donovan TE, Kahn RL. Indirect inhibition of polymerization of a
polyvinyl siloxane impression material: a case report. Quintessence Int 1991; 22:133-5.

[24.] E. E. Daou, The elastomers for complete denture impression: A review of the
literature. The Saudi dental journal 22 (2010) 153?-60.

[25.] Tjan AH, Heisler WH. Dimensional accuracy and bond strength of addition silicones.
Am J Dent 1992; 5: 223-225.

[26.] Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL. Long-term dimensional stability of three
current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 1983; 10: 325-333.

[27.] Lacy AM, Fukui H, Bellmann T, Jendresen MD. Time-dependent accuracy of
elastomeric impression materials. Part II: Polyether, polysulfides, and polyvinylsiloxane. J
Prosthet Dent 1981; 45:329-333.

[28.] Craig RG. Composition characteristics and clinical tissue reactions of impression
materials. In: Smith DC, Williams DF (eds). Biocompatibility of Dental Materials, vol 3.
Chicago: CRC Press, 1982:227-298.

[29.] Viohl J. Zahnarztliche Werkstoffe und ihre Verarbeitung. In: Eichner K, Kappert HF.
Grundlagen und Verarbeitung. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2005:273 302.

[30.] Anil N and Keyf F: The effect of different immersion disinfectants on the Wettability
of silicone impression materials. Gazi Uni Dis Hek Fak Der, 8:109-117, 1991.

[31.] Norling BK and Reisbick MH: The effect of nonionic surfactants on bubble
entrapment in elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent, 42:342-347, 1979. 36.

[32.] Pratten DH and Craig RG: Wettability of a hydrophilic addition silicone impression
material. J Prosthet Dent, 61:197- 202, 1989.

[33.] Pratten DH, Lowey DA and Sheats RD: Effect of disinfectant solutions on the
Wettability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent, 63:223-227, 1990. 53.

[34.] Veres EM, Wolfaardt JF and Becker PJ: An evaluation of the surface characteristics
of a facial prosthetic elastomer. Part III: Wettability and hardness. J Prosthet Dent,
63:466-471, 1990.

[35.] Cullen DR, Mikesell JW and Sandrik JL: Wettability of elastomeric impression
materials and voids in gypsum casts, J Prosthet Dent, 66:261265, 1991.

[36.] Skinner EW and Philips RW: The Science of Dental Materials. W. B. Saunders
Company. Philadelphia and London, p 136, 1967.

[37.] Smith BGN, Wright PS and Brown D: The Clinical Handling of Dental Materials. IOP
Publishing Limited, Wright, Bristol, p 66, 1986.

[38.] Chai JY, Jameson LM, Moser JB and Hesby RA: Adhesive properties of several
impression material systems: Part I, J Prosthet Dent, 66:201209, 1991.

[39.] Cullen DR, Mikesell JW and Sandrik JL : Wettability of elastomeric impression
materials and voids in gypsum casts, J Prosthet Dent, 66:261265, 1991

[40.] Lorren RA, Salter DJ and Fairhust CW: The contact angles of die stone on
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent, 36:176-180, 1976.

[41.] Pratten DH and Novetsky M: Detail reproduction of soft tissue: A Comparison of
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent, 65:188-191, 1991.

[42.] Vassilakos N and Fernandes CP: Surface properties of elastomeric impression
materials. J Dent, 21:297-301, 1993.

[43.] Veres EM, Wolfaardt JF and Becker PJ: An evaluation of the surface characteristics
of a facial prosthetic elastomer. Part I: Review of the literature on the surface
characteristics of dental materials with maxillofacial prosthetic application. J Prosthet
Dent, 63:193-197, 1990.

[44.] Eames WB, Wallace SW, Suway NB and Rogers LB: Accuracy and dimensional
stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent, 42:159-162, 1979.

[45.] Herring HW, Tames MA and Zardiackas LD: Comparison of the dimensional
accuracy of a combined reversible/irreversible hydrocolloid impression system with other
commonly used impression materials, J Prosthet Dent, 52:795-799, 1984.

[46.] Johnson GH and Craig RG: Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials
compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent, 53:484-490,
1985.

[47.] Klein IE and Broner AS: Complete denture secondary impression technique to
minimize distortion of ridge and border tissues. J Prosthet Dent, 54:660-664, 1985.

[48.] Chai J, Pang I. A study of the "thixotropic" property of elastomeric impression
materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:155- 8.

[49.] Chew C, Chee WWL, Donovan TE. The influence of temperature on dimensional
stability of poly (vinyl siloxane) impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6:528-32.

[50.] Derrien G, Le Menn G. Evaluation of detail reproduction for three die materials by
using scanning electron microscopy and two-dimensional profilometry. J Prosthet Dent
1995; 74:1-7.

[51.] Chee WWL, Donovan TE. Fine detail reproduction of very high viscosity poly (vinyl
siloxane) impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2:368-70.

[52.] Philips RW. Skinner's Science of Dental Materials, ed 9.Philadelphia: WB Saunders,
1991:145-147.

[53.] Wassell RW, Ibbetson RJ. The accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions made
with standard and reinforced stock trays. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65:748-57.

[54.] Frederick DR, Caputo A. Comparing the accuracy of reversible hydrocolloid and
elastomeric impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128:183-8.

[55.] Mc Cabe JF and Storer R : Elastomeric impression materials. Br Dent J, 149:73-79,
1980.

[56.] Tjan AHL, Li T. Effects of reheating on the accuracy of addition silicone putty-wash
impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65:743-8.

[57.] Lewinstein I, Craig RG. Accuracy of impression materials measured with a vertical
height gauge. J Oral Rehabil JGarlapo DG. Written communication, February 1996.
1990; 17:303-10.

[58.] DeWald JP, Nakajima H, Bell JL. Bond strengths between elastomeric impression
materials and disinfected preliminary impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71:394-9.

[59.] Tjan AH, Nemetz H, Nguyen LT, Contino R. Effect of tray space on the accuracy of
monophase polyvinyl siloxanes. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:19-21.

[60.] Hondrum SO. Tear and energy properties of three impression materials. Int J
Prosthodont 1994; 7:517-21.

[61.] Blomberg PAH, Mahmood S, Smales RJ, Makinson OF. Comparative elasticity tests
for elastomeric (non putty) impression materials. Aust Dent J 1992; 37:346-52.

[62.] Marcinak CF, Draughn RA. Linear dimensional change in addition silicone
impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47:411-3.

[63.] Shillingburg HT, Wilkerson-Lyman SL, Duncanson MG. Radiopacity enhancement
of an experimental vinyl polysiloxane impression material. Quintessence Int 1989;
20:657-63.

[64.] Pratten DH, Craig RG. Wettability of a hydrophilic addition silicone impression
material. J Dent Res 1987; 66:331.

[65.] Chai JY, Yeung T. Wettability of nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials. Int J
Prosthodont 1991; 4:555-60.

[66.] Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, Munoz CA, Moore BK. Hydrophilic poly(vinyl
siloxane) impression materials: Dimensional accuracy, wettability, and effect on gypsum
hardness. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:240-248.

[67.] Bryan TT, Anderson HL [inventors]. 3M ESPE, assignee. Hydrophilic silicones. US
Patent 4,657,959. 14 Apr 1987.

[68.] Gribi HK [inventor]. Dentsply GmbH, assignee. Dental impression materials.
European Patent A1 0 231 420. 4 Sept 1991.

[69.] Gribi HK. Werkstoffkunde-Atlas, Moderne Elastomere. Quintessenz Zahntech 1992;
18:1261-1274.

[70.] Takahashi H, Finger WJ. Dentin surface reproduction with hydrophilic and
hydrophobic impression materials. Dent Mater 1991; 7:197-201.

[71.] Millar BJ, Dunne SM, Robinson PB. The effect of a wetting agent on void form ation
in impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77:54-6.

[72.] Payne JA, Pereira BP. Bond strength of three nonaqueous elastomeric impression
materials to a light-activated resin tray. Int J Prosthodont 1992; 5:55-8.

[73.] Cho GC, Donovan TE, Chee WWL, White SN. Tensile bond strength of polyvinyl
siloxane impressions bonded to a custom tray as a function of drying time. Part 1. J
Prosthet Dent 1995; 73:419-23.

[74.] Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Bosser MJ, Nafso AJ. The effect of custom tray material
type and surface treatment on the tensile bond strength of an impression
material/adhesive system. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6:303-6.

[75.] Sulong MZAM, Setchell DJ. Properties of the tray adhesive of an addition
polymerizing silicone to impression tray materials. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66:743-7.

[76.] Herrera SP, Merchant VA. Dimensional stability of dental impressions after
immersion disinfection. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 113:419-22.

[77.] DelPilar Rios M, 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.

[78.] Johansen RE, Stackhouse JA. Dimensional changes of elastomers during cold
sterilization. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 57:233-6.

[79.] Holtan JR, Olin PS, Rudney JD. Dimensional stability of a polyvinyl siloxane
impression material following ethylene oxide and steam autoclave sterilization. J Prosthet
Dent 1991; 65:519- 25.

[80.] Hesby RM, Haganman CR, Stanford CM. Effects of radiofrequency glow discharge
on impression material surface wettability. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77:414-22.

Hemchand Surapaneni (1) *, Pallavi Samatha Y (2)., Ravi Shankar Y., Sirisha Attili

Department of Prosthodontics (1), Department of Periodontics (2), Drs. Sudha &
Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Chinaoutpalli, Gannavaram
Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District 521286 Andhra Pradesh, India Department of
Prosthodontics, GITAM Dental College and Hospital, Gandhi Nagar Campus,
Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam 530045, Andhra Pradesh, India

Department of Prosthodontics, St. Joseph Dental College, Eluru, West Godavari District
521286 Andhra Pradesh, India

* Corresponding author, Dr. Hemchand Surapaneni, hemchand 18@yahoo.co.in

Received 27 December 2012; Accepted 16 June 2013; Available online 21 July 2013