Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique.

Statement Of Problem: Impression making is a challenging clinical procedure for both patients and dentists.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare a recently introduced fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material with heavy body/light body (HB/LB) combination (Imprint 4; 3M ESPE) (experimental group) with a conventional PVS impression material with HB/LB combination (Imprint 3; 3M ESPE) (control group), using the 1-step 2-viscosity impression technique.

Material And Methods: Two definitive impressions (1 of each material combination) were made of 20 crown preparations from 20 participants. The quality of impressions was rated by 3 evaluators (clinical evaluator, clinical operator, and dental technician) and by the patients for the level of comfort and taste of the impression materials. The order in which the 2 impressions were made with each material combination was randomized for each crown preparation. A paired t test for paired means and McNemar test for paired proportions were used for statistical comparisons (α=.05).

Results: Participants rated the comfort of the impression making with the experimental group significantly higher than that with the control group (P=.001). No significant differences were found in participants' rating for the taste of the impression materials (P=.46). The viscosity for tray material was rated as significantly better for the control group by the clinical operator (P=.004). The readability of the impression and visibility around the finish line were rated as significantly better for the experimental group than for the control group (P<.001). Except for the ease of removal of the stone (RS), the ratings for the 2 groups by the dental technician were similar. The ease of RS was rated as significantly better for the experimental group (P<.001). Eleven dies from the control and 9 from the experimental group were selected for fabrication of the definitive crowns (P=.65).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this clinical study, no significant differences were found in the overall clinical performance of the experimental and the control groups. Impressions made with both materials were clinically acceptable. Participants rated the comfort provided by the experimental group significantly better than that of the control group.