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: 77  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 



 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 20-25  

Surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of contemporary irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives after immediate and delayed pouring


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Maratha Mandal's Nathajirao G. Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Belagavi, India
2 Consultant Prosthodontist and Implantologist, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Senior Dental Health Officer, Government Taluka General Hospital, Deodurga, Raichur District, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication6-Mar-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Preethi Kusugal
Department of Prosthodontics, Maratha Mandal's N. G. Halgekar's Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Belagavi, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_676_17

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Purpose: To overcome the poor dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloids, alternative materials were introduced. The dimensional changes of these alternatives after delayed pouring are not well studied and documented in the literature. The purpose of the study is to evaluate and compare the surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of two irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives with an extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid at different time intervals. Materials and Methods: All testing were performed according to the ANSI/ADA specification number 18 for surface detail reproduction and specification number 19 for dimensional change. The test materials used in this study were newer irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives such as AlgiNot FS, Algin-X Ultra FS, and Kromopan 100 which is an extended pour irreversible hydrocolloid as control. The surface detail reproduction was evaluated using stereomicroscope. The dimensional change after storage period of 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h was assessed and compared between the test materials and control. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Statistically significant results (P < 0.001) were seen when mean scores of the tested materials were compared with respect to reproduction of 22 μm line from the metal block. Kromopan 100 showed statistically significant differences between different time intervals (P < 0.001) and exhibited more dimensional change. Algin-X Ultra FS proved to be more accurate and dimensionally stable. Conclusions: Newer irreversible hydrocolloid alternative impression materials were more accurate in surface detail reproduction and exhibited minimal dimensional change after storage period of 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h than extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid impression material.

Keywords: Dimensional stability, impression materials, irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives


How to cite this article:
Kusugal P, Chourasiya RS, Ruttonji Z, Astagi P, Nayak AK, Patil A. Surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of contemporary irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives after immediate and delayed pouring. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:20-5

How to cite this URL:
Kusugal P, Chourasiya RS, Ruttonji Z, Astagi P, Nayak AK, Patil A. Surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of contemporary irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives after immediate and delayed pouring. Contemp Clin Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2022 Oct 7];9:20-5. Available from: https://www.contempclindent.org/text.asp?2018/9/1/20/226539


   Introduction Top


Surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of an impression are paramount to the overall success of prosthodontic treatment.[1] Ideally, an impression material should be stable in dimension over time to allow the operator to pour the impression at convenience. Irreversible hydrocolloids are the conventionally used impression materials by dental clinicians. The storage time before pouring is a significant factor in the dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloids and the accuracy of the resulting stone casts.[2],[3],[4],[5]

Irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials were originally developed during World War II, due to the scarcity of raw materials for reversible hydrocolloids.[6] Irreversible hydrocolloids are basically water-based materials that are cost-effective and can be easily manipulated by following the manufacturer's directions.[2],[7] This makes them an indispensable part of dental practice. The popularity of irreversible hydrocolloids is attributed to their low cost, hydrophilic nature, and ease of manipulation as compared to other impression materials.[4],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]

Despite being widely used and accepted, irreversible hydrocolloids are not stable impression materials for storage. The greatest disadvantage of irreversible hydrocolloids is their low dimensional stability.[4],[5],[7],[11],[12],[13] Water absorption (imbibition) and water exudation (syneresis) that occurs over time may result in the production of inaccurate casts, and it is generally recommended that irreversible hydrocolloid impressions should be poured immediately [3],[4],[5],[8],[9],[10],[11],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] or within few minutes after removal from the mouth.[20],[21],[22] Nevertheless, immediate pouring of an impression may not always be possible, especially when it has to be sent to a dental laboratory.

A number of new generation “extended-pour” irreversible hydrocolloids are available in the market that claim to maintain dimensional stability and accuracy with delayed pouring times of up to 100 h when stored as recommended by the manufacturer. These extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloids are designed such that the operator has the option of delaying the pouring time of impressions under specified storage conditions. A recent investigation showed that the storage of these impressions for up to 100 h resulted in minimum dimensional change.[23],[24],[25] However, repouring of the impression is not advised in extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloids and they are considered to be inferior to elastomeric impression materials in regard to surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability.

Alginate alternatives have been developed to overcome the drawback of less storage time of conventional irreversible hydrocolloids. These are basically addition cure polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) which are less expensive silicones and can be stored for longer time before pouring. The introduction of these newer alternatives has provided an additional choice of impression material for a variety of clinical applications in fixed partial dentures, removable partial dentures, orthodontic appliances, night guards, and sleep apnea appliances. According to the manufacturers of products such as AlgiNot FS (Kerr Corp., Romulus, MI) and Position Penta Quick (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN), the pouring of impressions can be delayed without any significant distortion in the resultant casts. The manufacturers also claim that the accuracy of impressions may be unaltered even after repouring of casts. Recent studies have reported that these two irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives were more accurate with regard to the surface detail reproduction and they were dimensionally stable over an extended period.[26],[27],[28],[29] However, the number of laboratory and clinical investigations on these materials is much lower than the number of studies on traditional irreversible hydrocolloids.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability of two irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives with an extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid impression material as control, at different time intervals. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference between the two irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives and extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid impression material with regard to the surface detail reproduction and dimensional stability.


   Materials and Methods Top


The testing apparatus consists of a ruled metal block and ring mold. The dimensions of the apparatus were set according to the ANSI/ADA specification 18,[30],[31],[32],[33] and all the impressions were made on the metal block. Three longitudinal lines X, Y, and Z were engraved onto the surface of the metal block with widths of 50 ± 8 μm, 20 ± 4 μm, and 75 ± 8 μm, respectively. These longitudinal lines were intersected by two transverse cross lines cd and c'd'; the distance between them was 25 mm. Exact measurement of each of the engraved longitudinal line was made before the commencement of testing, and widths were found to be 55 μm, 22 μm, and 77 μm.

Evaluation of surface detail reproduction

The metal block and ring were placed in a thermostatistically controlled water bath at a temperature of 32°C (±2°C) for 30 min to simulate the oral temperature before making the impression. For Kromopan 100, the powder was mixed with distilled water according to the manufacturer's recommended ratio. The ring mold was placed onto the metal block, and mixed impression material was applied directly onto the lined surface of the metal block. A glass slab was pressed slowly onto the impression material. Care was taken not to incorporate air in between the impression material and the glass slab. The assembly was immediately transferred to a water bath at 32°C ± 2°C. A 1 kg weight was placed on top of it to maintain a uniform force until the material was set. The ring mold was then separated from the metal block and the impression was retrieved and then examined immediately.

For AlgiNot FS and Algin X ultra FS, the mixed impression material was injected onto the lined surface using auto mixing tips and a dispensing gun loaded with the impression material cartridge, and the procedure was carried out in a similar manner.

Further, for the quantification of the surface detail reproduction, the specimens were examined immediately under the stereomicroscope (Labomed, USA) with eyepiece magnification of 10×, zoom magnification of 0.8. The impression material specimens that visually reproduce the 22 μm (Y line) of the steel die in its entirety were included for the microscopic measurements. The microscope eyepiece lens had a calibrated scale with readings in the nanometer scale (nm) which allowed for precise measurements of the samples. The readings obtained under the microscope were converted to the millimeter scale (mm) using the following formula:



Evaluation of dimensional stability

The impression material specimens of each test material were made in a similar manner as described previously for surface detail reproduction for determining the dimensional change. The impression specimens were pressed out of the mold using the riser. These specimens were stored at room temperature for 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h for the assessment of dimensional change over the storage period. Kromopan 100 specimens were stored in sealed plastic zipper pouches whereas AlgiNot FS and Algin X ultra FS specimens were stored in open containers and maintained at room temperature until they were observed.

To determine the dimensional stability, the distance between the cross lines cd and c'd' on the ruled metal block was measured using a stereomicroscope at 10× eyepiece magnification and 0.8 zoom magnification and recorded as reading “A”. The distance between the cross lines cd and c'd' reproduced in the impression specimens was measured at 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h of all specimens and recorded as reading “B”. The measurements were made with the aid of the edges of the cross lines and performed each time in the same way, i.e. by measuring the same distance using the same reference point. The dimensional change was then calculated using the formula outlined in the ANSI/ADA specification number 19.[34]

Dimensional change %= (A–B)/A × 100.


   Results Top


According to the results of one-way ANOVA, significant differences were found between the test materials and control in surface detail reproduction (P< 0.001) [Table 1] and [Figure 1].
Table 1: Comparison of mean score using one-way ANOVA test for surface detail reproduction

Click here to view
Figure 1: Surface detail reproduction

Click here to view


The results of the post hoc Bonferroni test showed a mean score higher in AlgiNot FS samples (P = 0.011) and Algin X Ultra FS (P< 0.001) when compared with Kromopan. However, no statistically significant differences were found between AlgiNot FS and Algin X Ultra FS (P = 0.069) [Table 2].
Table 2: Group comparison using post hoc Bonferroni tests for surface detail reproduction

Click here to view


After calculating the percentage linear dimensional change, repeated ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in the dimensional change of Kromopan samples at 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h (P< 0.001). The post hoc Bonferroni analysis results showed statistically significant differences between 1 h and 24 h (P = 0.010), 1 h and 120 h (P = 0.001), and also between 24 h and 120 h (P = 0.044) with mean value higher at 120 h [Table 3] and [Figure 2].
Table 3: Comparison of dimensional stability in Kromopan samples using repeated ANOVA test after calculating the percentage linear dimensional change and post hoc Bonferroni tests for group comparison

Click here to view
Figure 2: Dimensional stability of Kromopan

Click here to view


A comparison of the dimensional change in AlgiNot samples by applying repeated ANOVA showed statistically insignificant results at different time intervals (P = 0.064). The post hoc Bonferroni analysis results for the AlgiNot group at 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h also showed statistically insignificant differences [Table 4] and [Figure 3].
Table 4: Comparison of dimensional stability in AlgiNot samples using repeated ANOVA test after calculating the percentage linear dimensional change and post hoc Bonferroni tests for group comparison

Click here to view
Figure 3: Dimensional stability of AlgiNot

Click here to view


Repeated ANOVA for the comparison of dimensional changes in Algin X Ultra samples showed statistically insignificant results at different time intervals (P = 0.064). The post hoc Bonferroni analysis results for Algin X Ultra samples at 1 h, 24 h, and 120 h showed statistically insignificant differences [Table 5] and [Figure 4].
Table 5: Comparison of dimensional stability in Algin X Ultra samples using repeated ANOVA test after calculating the percentage linear dimensional change and post hoc Bonferroni tests for group comparison

Click here to view
Figure 4: Dimensional stability of Algin X Ultra

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The conventional irreversible hydrocolloid is basically a linear polymer of a sodium salt of anhydro-β-D-mannuronic acid. When alginic acid reacts with a calcium salt, it produces an insoluble elastic gel called calcium alginate. When mixed with water, the alginate material first forms a sol. The following chemical reaction forms a gel to create the set impression material.[14] The major constituent of set hydrocolloid impression materials is water, which is a crucial factor in dimensional stability. Irreversible hydrocolloid impression contains almost 70% of water.[17] Because of this high water content, it is subjected to syneresis or loss of water. With time, the water is expelled from the interstitial spaces between chains. Therefore, the macroscopic result is the shrinkage of the impression. Furthermore, the material is capable of absorbing water through imbibition, which results in the expansion of the impression. A study was conducted by Garg et al. to evaluate syneresis and imbibition in four commercially available irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials at different time intervals of 10, 20, and 30 min and found different rates of imbibition and syneresis at different time intervals.[35]

Irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives were first introduced in 1984 to overcome the drawbacks of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials.[36],[37] They are less expensive silicone materials having better physical properties compared to irreversible hydrocolloids. The present study was conducted to compare such irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives with one extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid as control, with regard to the surface detail reproduction and dimensional change.

The extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloids are newer materials that show promising dimensional stability up to 120 h. The studies performed by various authors such as Todd et al.[38] and Eriksson et al.[39] have shown Kromopan 100 as a stable material with less dimensional change for up to 48 h. Walker et al.[23] evaluated the dimensional change over time of two extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials with conventional irreversible hydrocolloids. They showed that Alginmax and Kromopan 100 were dimensionally stable after storage for 100 h. However, recent studies have shown that Alginplus, Hydrogum 5, and Cavex ColorChange were dimensionally stable for only 24 h at consistent temperature and humidity.[40],[41]

In the present study after visual examination, all the three materials were able to reproduce 22 μm (Y line) to its entire length of 25 mm. When microscopically assessed, AlgiNot and Algin X Ultra were able to reproduce the Y line of the metal block more accurately than the control material Kromopan. Algin X Ultra FS was found to be most accurate in surface detail reproduction among the three materials. The results were similar to the study conducted by Ragain et al.,[42] which reported on the ability of PVS impression materials to consistently reproduce 20 μm wide lines.

At the time of comparison of dimensional changes, it was noted that Algin X Ultra FS and Alginot FS underwent minimal dimensional changes when stored for 120 h, and Kromopan 100 showed greater variability among the three materials. The study results indicate that the newer irreversible hydrocolloid alternative materials showed better dimensional stability in comparison to the extended-pour alginates when delayed pouring is considered.

Nassar et al.[26] and Patel et al.[27] have used AlgiNot and similar materials for a time-dependent comparison and found them recommendable for usage with regard to dimensional accuracy, surface detail reproduction, and gypsum compatibility.

The ADA specification number 18[30] and the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 1563:1990[43] specify requirements for irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials used in dentistry; however, neither of them specifies any limit on dimensional changes. The ADA specification number 19[34] for elastomeric impression materials specifies that the dimensional change of a material should be <1.5% at 24 h. The dimensional changes of the test materials used in this study were within this limit.

One of the limitations of the study is that the impression material specimens were not subjected to any disinfectants, which could have an effect on the tested parameters. Only linear dimensional change was assessed in the study. Further investigations should be conducted to assess the behavior of these materials in vivo. Prospective research should investigate rheological behavior, elastic recovery, and other physical properties of these irreversible hydrocolloid alternative materials.


   Conclusions Top


On the basis of the observations, statistical analysis, results, and limitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

  1. The newer generation irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives performed better with respect to the surface detail reproduction and dimensional change
  2. Algin X Ultra was found to be most accurate in surface detail reproduction and was more dimensionally stable than the other materials
  3. Irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives were more dimensionally stable up to 120 h when compared to extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloids
  4. When the mean percentage dimensional change was compared at 1 h, 2 h, and 120 h, Kromopan showed maximum dimensional change whereas Algin X Ultra exhibited least.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Schleier PE, Gardner FM, Nelson SK, Pashley DH. The effect of storage time on the accuracy and dimensional stability of reversible hydrocolloid impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:244-50.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Nassar U, Aziz T, Flores-Mir C. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials as a function of pouring time: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:126-33.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Sedda M, Casarotto A, Raustia A, Borracchini A. Effect of storage time on the accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloids. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:59-66.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Gumus HO' Dincel M, Buyuk KS, Kilinc IH, Bilgin MS, Zortuk M. The effect of pouring time on the dimensional stability of casts made from conventional and extended-pour irreversible hydrocolloids by 3D modelling. J Dent Sci 2015;10:275-81.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Erbe C, Ruf S, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M. Dimensional stability of contemporary irreversible hydrocolloids: Humidor versus wet tissue storage. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:114-22.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Shen C. Impression materials. In: Anusavice KJ, Phillips RH, Shen C, Rawls RH, editors. Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis, MO.: Saunders; 2003. p. 240-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Guiraldo RD, Moreti AF, Martinelli J, Berger SB, Meneghel LL, Caixeta RV, et al. Influence of alginate impression materials and storage time on surface detail reproduction and dimensional accuracy of stone models. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2015;28:156-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Impression materials. In: Restorative Dental Materials. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006. p. 272-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 2006. p. 35-48.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ashley M, McCullagh A, Sweet C. Making a good impression: (a 'how to' paper on dental alginate). Dent Update 2005;32:169-70, 172, 174-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Rodrigues SB, Augusto CR, Leitune VC, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Influence of delayed pouring on irreversible hydrocolloid properties. Braz Oral Res 2012;26:404-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Cook W. Alginate dental impression materials: Chemistry, structure, and properties. J Biomed Mater Res 1986;20:1-24.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Fellows CM, Thomas GA. Determination of bound and unbound water in dental alginate irreversible hydrocolloid by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Dent Mater 2009;25:486-93.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Anusavice KJ. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: Saunders; 2003. p. 205-54.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Douglass JB, White JG, Mitchell RJ. Clinical acceptability of orthodontic retainers fabricated from stored alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:93-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Cohen BI, Pagnillo M, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Dimensional accuracy of three different alginate impression materials. J Prosthodont 1995;4:195-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Miller MW. Syneresis in alginate impression materials. Br Dent J 1975;139:425-30.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Coleman RM, Hembree JH Jr., Weber FN. Dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Am J Orthod 1979;75:438-46.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
O'Brien WJ. Dental Materials and Their Selection. 4th ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 2002. p. 91-113.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rudd KD, Morrow RM, Bange AA. Accurate casts. J Prosthet Dent 1969;21:545-54.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48:vi-vii, 445-70.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Shaba OP, Adegbulugbe IC, Oderinu OH. Dimensional stability of alginate impression material over a four hours time frame. Nig Q J Hosp Med 2007;17:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Walker MP, Burckhard J, Mitts DA, Williams KB. Dimensional change over time of extended-storage alginate impression materials. Angle Orthod 2010;80:1110-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Imbery TA, Nehring J, Janus C, Moon PC. Accuracy and dimensional stability of extended-pour and conventional alginate impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141:32-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Rohanian A, Ommati Shabestari G, Zeighami S, Samadi MJ, Shamshiri AR. Effect of storage time of extended-pour and conventional alginate impressions on dimensional accuracy of casts. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:655-64.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Nassar U, Hussein B, Oko A, Carey JP, Flores-Mir C. Dimensional accuracy of 2 irreversible hydrocolloid alternative impression materials with immediate and delayed pouring. J Can Dent Assoc 2012;78:c2.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Patel RD, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Winer MS. An in vitro investigation into the physical properties of irreversible hydrocolloid alternatives. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:325-32.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Torassian G, Kau CH, English JD, Powers J, Bussa HI, Marie Salas-Lopez A, et al. Digital models vs. plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials. Angle Orthod 2010;80:474-81.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Baxter RT, Lawson NC, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO, et al. Evaluation of outgassing, tear strength, and detail reproduction in alginate substitute materials. Oper Dent 2012;37:540-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Council of Scientific Affairs. American Dental Association Specification No. 18. Alginate Impression Materials. Chicago: American Dental Association; 1992. Available from: http://www.ada.org/275.aspx.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Morrow RM, Brown CE Jr., Stansbury BE, DeLorimier JA, Powell JM, Rudd KD, et al. Compatibility of alginate impression materials and dental stones. J Prosthet Dent 1971;25:556-66.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Owen CP. An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products. Part I. Capacity to record grooves on the international standard die. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:93-103.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Owen CP. An investigation into the compatibility of some irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials and dental gypsum products. Part II. A refined discriminatory procedure. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:147-62.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Council of Scientific Affairs. American Dental Association Specification No. 19. Dental Elastomeric Impression Materials; 2004. Available from: http://www.ada.org/275.aspx.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Garg S, Mittal S, Bansal S, Kansal G. A study on imbibitions and syneresis in four commercially available irreversible hydrocolloid (Alginate) impression material. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2012;2:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Eames WB, Litvak CS. New irreversible hydrocolloid silicone impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:479-84.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Davis DR, Preble JS. Accuracy of a hydrophilic irreversible hydrocolloid/silicone impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:304-8.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Todd JA, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, Shellhart WC. Dimensional changes of extended-pour alginate impression materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:S55-63.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Eriksson A, Ockert-Eriksson G, Lockowandt P. Accuracy of irreversible hydrocolloids (alginates) for fixed prosthodontics. A comparison between irreversible hydrocolloid, reversible hydrocolloid, and addition silicone for use in the syringe-tray technique. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106:651-60.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Aalaei S, Ganj-Khanloo R, Gholami F. Effect of storage period on dimensional stability of alginplus and hydrogum 5. J Dent (Tehran) 2017;14:31-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Jiang T, Lee SM, Hou Y, Chang X, Hwang HS. Evaluation of digital dental models obtained from dental cone-beam computed tomography scan of alginate impressions. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:129-36.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Ragain JC, Grosko ML, Raj M, Ryan TN, Johnston WM. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:214-20.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO standard 1563:1990(E). Dental alginate impression material. Available at: http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/ISOstore/store.html.  Back to cited text no. 43
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2388    
    Printed38    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded173    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal