Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 849  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 203-207

Mechanical properties of a new vinyl polyether silicone in comparison to vinyl polysiloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials

1 Consultant Prosthodontist, Clove Dental, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Government Dental College and Hospital, Medical Campus, Medical Square, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suryakant C Deogade
C/o Vivek Thombre, Flat No-301, Maharshi Gajanan Apartment-3, Wanjari Nagar, Nagpur - 440 003, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_324_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: A new elastomeric impression material which is a combination of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE) elastomers called “polyvinyl ether silicone” (PVES) has been introduced with predictable accuracy and high-quality impressions. There is insufficient data on mechanical properties of this material. Materials and Methods: A comparative study of mechanical properties of VPS, PE, and PVES was carried out using light- and heavy-body consistencies of the three materials. Three standardized stainless steel molds were made to fabricate study specimens (n = 96). The specimens were tested for elastic recovery, strain under compression, tear energy, and tensile strength (TS) using the universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was done using two-way analysis of variance test. Results: Elastic recovery was higher in VPS as compared to other two materials. Strain under compression was higher for PE followed by PVES. Tensile energy was significantly higher in PVS while TS was higher in VPS, followed by PVES and PE. Conclusion: PVES tested was found to be more flexible with high tensile energy. This material can be preferred in cases with undercut areas favoring the removal of impressions without tear and distortion.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded75    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal