Original Article

Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different

elastomeric impression materials on chemical disinfection
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

and autoclaving: An in vitro study

Garima Gothwal, Sudhir Meena, U. Narendra Padiyar, Hemant Kumar Sharma, Pragati Kaurani,
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

Devendra Pal Singh

Department of Prosthodontics and Crowns and Bridges, Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Abstract Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of disinfection and steam autoclaving on the elastic
recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials.
Settings and Design: In vivo - comparative study.
Materials and Methods: Ninety dumbbell‑shaped specimens of commercially available two addition‑cured
silicones (AFFINIS and AQUASIL) and one condensation‑cured silicone (SPEEDEX) impression materials were
prepared and treated with chemical disinfectant and steam autoclaving. Specimens were seal packed and
sent to laboratory for testing elastic recovery. After the specimen had been pulled to failure, the broken
parts were fitted back together, and the distance between the marks was measured using an electronic
Vernier caliper.
Statistical Analysis Used: one‑way analysis of variance test and Tukey post hoc test for multiple
comparisons.
Results: The result showed significant difference in elastic recovery of AFFINIS when it was disinfected and
steam autoclaved whereas elastic recovery showed no significant difference when SPEEDEX and AQUASIL
were disinfected and steam autoclaved. Similarly, results were alike when AFFINIS, SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL
were compared on disinfection. However, significant difference was noted on steam autoclaving, highest
being the mean value of AFFINIS.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, conclusion was made that the elastic recovery
of AFFINIS was the least which improved with disinfection and autoclaving. Elastic recovery of
SPEEDEX and AQUASIL was similar. However, all the three materials used in the study can be safely
sterilized after clinical use and before being sent to the laboratory without significantly affecting
their elastic recovery.

Keywords: Disinfection, elastic recovery, polyvinyl siloxane, sterilization

Address for correspondence: Dr. Garima Gothwal, H‑3 Hetnagar, Udhasar Fanta, Jaipur Road, Bikaner ‑ 334 003, Rajasthan, India.
E‑mail: [email protected]
Received: 2nd August, 2019, Revision: 3rd September, 2019, Accepted: 20th September, 2019, Publication: 10th October, 2019

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Access this article online Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to
remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit
Quick Response Code:
Website: is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

www.j‑ips.org For reprints contact: [email protected]

How to cite this article: Gothwal G, Meena S, Padiyar UN, Sharma HK,
DOI: Kaurani P, Singh DP. Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three
10.4103/jips.jips_277_19 different elastomeric impression materials on chemical disinfection and
autoclaving: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19:345-52.

© 2019 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 345
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

INTRODUCTION deformation when poured with gypsum product, and the

poured impressions can be retrieved from the cast without
The fabrication of a good prosthesis begins with making of permanent deformation of the impression so that the same
a good impression. Fabricating a precisely fitting prosthesis impression can be used more than once.[6]
fully depends on an accurate impression making. From time
to time, impression materials have evolved due to their PVS represents best elastic recovery than polyether and
better physical and handling properties and impression polysulfide.[1] PVS is the impression material which can
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

materials that have received a lot of attention are irreversible withstand the sterilization procedure and yet can produce
hydrocolloids, polyethers, polyvinyls, and polysulfides.[1] an accurate cast.[7] A survey was done by dentists and
found that 50% of the dental professionals would favor an
In the clinical scenario, a set impression is a pool for
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

impression material which can be autoclaved.[8,9]

pathogens after its removal from the patient’s mouth.
During the time of model fabrication, these microorganisms Nowadays, there are impression materials available
travel into the model from the impression, posing risk for in market which can withstand high temperature
clinicians as well as laboratory workers through secondary and can be sterilized; these materials are known as
contact. Hence a standard infection control protocol must be autoclavable impression materials. The latest elastomeric
followed in our daily routine to minimize the risk of spread impression materials are quadrafunctionally modified
of these microorganisms which leads to infectious diseases.[2] siloxanes with quadrafunctional hydrophilic property. The
quadrafunctional hydrophilic structure of the material is an
Transmissible diseases like herpes, hepatitis, and HIV excellent combination of a cross‑linked polymer with an
infections command that dental practitioners must follow exclusive surface active element. Hence, quadrafunctional
this protocol in order to dodge the cross infection and hydrophilic impression materials are a combination
the menace of disease spread. At present, several rules of properties of polyether impression materials and
and regulations are put forward by various bodies such addition‑cured silicone impression materials.
as American Dental Association, Center for Disease
Control and British Dental Association Advisory Service In the light of these facts, a study was planned to evaluate
and Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the elastic recovery of various elastomeric impression
sterilization and infection control in dentistry.[3] materials on autoclaving and comparing it to the currently
practiced method of chemical disinfection. The aim of
Impression disinfection can be performed by immersion or the study was to investigate the effect of disinfection and
spray methods with a suitable disinfectant. The antibacterial steam autoclaving on the elastic recovery of three different
efficiency and dimensional stability are two important elastomeric impression materials. The null hypothesis was
parameters that are evaluated after disinfection of an that there will be no effect on the elastic recovery of the
impression. Impression sterilization is more effective than materials when they are chemically disinfected and steam
disinfection because disinfection only aims at killing the autoclaved.
microorganisms that produce diseases but has no effect on
bacterial spores.[4] The most effective way that is claimed so MATERIALS AND METHODS
far for the control of cross‑infection and contamination by
microorganisms is steam autoclave sterilization. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board.
Measurement of elastic recovery of AFFINIS (light
Ideally, the maximum elasticity was observed in polyvinyl body consistency addition cured PVS impression material
siloxanes (PVS) because of their good elastic recovery AFFINIS, Coltene/Whaledent Pvt., Ltd., 9450 Alstalten,
and resistance to deformation and high tear strength. PVS Switzerland, batch H80440), SPEEDEX (light body
has a property to deform at much slower rates than other consistency condensation‑cured silicone impression
elastomeric impression materials and tear at points of less material, SPEEDEX, Coltene/Whaledent Pvt., Ltd., 9450
permanent deformation.[5] Alstalten, Switzerland, batch H44:41), AQUASIL (light
body consistency addition‑cured PVS impression
The elastic recovery is an important parameter that includes material, AQUASIL, Dentsply Australia Pvt., Ltd., batch
the concept of time, as these parameters represent the IN2139356) was done by treating these materials with
ability of the impression to remain unaffected by storage. disinfectant (SURFASEPT S.A, aldehyde free disinfectant
This parameter also represents that the impressions that solution, containing isopropyl alcohol ‑ 70% w/w and
are polymerized will show sufficient stiffness to resist chlorhexidine gluconate ‑ 2.5% w/w, SURFASEPT S.
346 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

A Septodent Healthcare India Pvt., Ltd., batch S019 L01150)

and steam autoclaving (Gnatus Bioclave) [Figure 1].

The specimens prepared for elastic recovery were dumbbell

shaped similar to the specimen used for rubber testing
by ASTM test no D412. These typical dumbbell‑shaped
specimens were created to exert a uniform pressure across
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

the gripping surfaces. As the tension increases, it prevents

slippage to favor failure of the specimens in the straight
reduced section.[10]
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

These specimens were prepared with the help of a metal die

with a lower and upper member. The lower member had an
aluminum mold of dimensions of 11.5 cm × 5 cm × 1 cm. Figure 1: Impression materials used
It had an hour glass shape recess cut to a thickness of
1 mm. It also had two holes placed diagonally at two corners
for seating the stops present in upper member. The upper
member consisted of an aluminum lid covering the lower
member. It had six escape holes for the excess material
to flow so as to get a 1 mm consistent thickness of the
specimen. The lid also had two stops placed diagonally on a b
the two corners to get a stable stop while seating the upper Figure 2: (a and b) Metal die fabrication where A ‑ 10 cm, B ‑ 4 cm,
member on the lower member [Figure 2a and b]. C ‑ 3 cm, D ‑ 3 cm

For measuring the elastic recovery, 30 specimens for

each of the three test materials were prepared by placing
the material in the lower member and cover it with the
upper member, and over that a 5 lb weight was placed
while the excess material flows out of the escape holes
to get a consistent 1 mm thickness of the specimen. The
samples were trimmed to the dimensions of an acrylic
stencil (A ‑ 3.8 cm, B ‑ 0.9 cm, C ‑ 0.6 cm, D ‑ 0.4 cm)
with the help of Bard Parker blade. The thickness was
measured with a digital Vernier caliper to rule out any
discrepancy [Figures 3‑5a‑c and 6].

Hence, 10 specimens of each impression material,

i.e., a total of 90 samples were prepared. The samples
were divided into 3 groups which included the group to be Figure 3: Acrylic Stencil was prepared with the following dimensions:
autoclaved, disinfected, and untreated group. These groups A ‑ 3.8 cm, B ‑ 0.9 cm, C ‑ 0.6 cm, D ‑ 0.4 cm
were further subdivided into 3 subgroups of AFFINIS,
SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL test materials [Figure 7]. 9]. After the sterilization of all specimens, they were bagged
and sealed for subsequent analysis within 24 hours. A 24
The silicone impression specimens which were allocated to hour time period was used to simulate transportation from
the autoclave treatment group were placed on sterilization the dental department to the dental laboratory.
trays and underwent a standard autoclave cycle at 134°C
for 30 minutes [Figure 8a and b]. For disinfection The prepared specimens were mounted on Instron
procedure, specimens were placed in chemical disinfectant universal testing machine [Figure 10] by clamping the
SURFASEPT S.A, an aldehyde‑free disinfectant solution, ends in the serrated jaws of the testing apparatus. Tensile
containing isopropyl alcohol ‑ 70% w/w and chlorhexidine load of 10 mm/min was applied. The elongation at
gluconate ‑ 2.5% w/w for 10 min, as recommended by the break (stretchability) was measured in millimeters. After the
manufacturer, and then rinsed under the tap for 30 s [Figure specimen had been pulled to failure, the broken parts were
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019 347
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

fitted back together and the distance between the marks was sterilization group. On the other hand, one way ANOVA and
measured using an electronic caliper with a resolution of Tukey test evaluated no significant difference in the mean
0.01 mm after 2 h [Figure 11]. The change in length (Δ L) values of elastic recovery of AQUASIL and SPEEDEX
was measured, and percentage deformation was calculated when they were disinfected, sterilized, and left untreated in
which ultimately provided the elastic recovery. Tables 3, 4 and Graph II and III .

Data were entered in Microsoft Office Excel. Appropriate Effect on control groups of each material
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

statistical tests were used to find significant association with In Table 5 and Graph IV, when the three impression
the help of Mini Tab Version 18 software (Headquartered in materials were compared among each other using one‑way
State College, Pa., Minitab, LLC. operates offices in Phoenix, ANOVA test and Tukey test, no significant difference was
Arizona, Chicago). P < 0.05 was considered as statistically
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

observed; all the three impression materials showed same

significant. One‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was values when left untreated.
used to test for statistically significant differences within
the groups and also across the groups. Tukey pairwise Effect of disinfection
comparisons grouping information using the Tukey Effect of disinfection was compared in between materials,
method at 95% confidence was used. i.e., AFFINIS, SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL. Table 6 and

RESULTS Table 1: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AFFINIS (%)

Group n Mean SD P
Elastic recovery of each material Group 1A 10 97.6 0.339 0.000
A comparison of the mean values for each of the three Group 2A 10 98.8 0.318
impression material specimen was done. It was evaluated Group 3A 10 99.0 0.2976
SD: Standard deviation
using one-way ANOVA. A significant difference was found
in the mean values of AFFINIS in Table 1 and Graph I.
Table 2: Tukey pairwise comparisons grouping information
The specimens were further compared using Tukey test in using the Tukey method and 95% confidence of elastic
Table 2, and a significant difference was found in the groups, recovery of AFFINIS (%)
lowest being the control group followed by disinfection and Factor n Mean Grouping Factor
1A 10 97.6 * 1A
2A 10 98.8 2A
3A 10 99.0 3A
Means that do not share a mark (*) are significantly different

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of SPEEDEX (%)

Group n Mean SD P
1B 10 98.7 0.790 >0.05
2B 10 98.8 0.3128
3B 10 98.6 0.2161
SD: Standard deviation

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AQUASIL (%)

Group n Mean SD P
Group 1C 10 98.7 0.455 >0.05
Group 2C 10 98.6 0.1823
Group 3C 10 98.7 0.2808
Figure 4: Electronic Vernier caliper SD: Standard deviation

a b c
Figure 5: (a‑c) Loading of impression material in the die

348 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

Figure 6: Retrieved specimen from metal die

Figure 7: Specimens for elastic recovery testing

a b
Figure 8: (a and b) Autoclaving elastic recovery specimens

a b
Figure 9: (a and b) Disinfection of elastic recovery specimens

Figure 10: Universal testing machine

Graph V shows no difference in mean elastic recovery of

all the three impressions.

Effect of sterilization
The comparison was done among three test specimens
for elastic recovery on sterilization using one‑way
Figure 11: Broken elastic recovery specimen
ANOVA test and Tukey test. According to Tables 7 and
8 and Graph VI, a significant difference was found in DISCUSSION
the mean values of elastic recovery of AFFINIS when
compared to SPEEDEX and AQUASIL. AFFINIS The increasing risk of cross‑infection from patient to
being the highest while AQUASIL and SPEEDEX were clinicians which is carried forward to the dental technicians
almost alike. through the dental impressions is a topic of interest these

The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019 349
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

99 98.8

98.5 98.75
(I)Descriptive (II) Descriptive
Statistics of 98.7 Statistics of
98
Elastic 98.65 Elastic recovery
97.5 recovery of of SPEEDEX (%)
98.6
AFFINIS (%)
97 98.55
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

96.5 98.5
1A 2A 3A 1B 2B 3B

98.7 99
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

98.5 (IV) Descriptive

98.65 (III) Descriptive Statistics of
Statistics of Elastic recovery
98
Elastic of AFFINIS,
98.6 recovery of SPEEDEX and
AQUASIL (%) 97.5 AQUASIL (%)

98.55 97
1C 2C 3C 1A 1B 1C

99 99

98.5 (VI) Descriptive

(V) Descriptive 98.8 Statistics of Elastic
98 Statistics of Elastic recovery of
recovery of AFFINIS, AFFINIS, SPEEDEX
SPEEDEX and 98.6
97.5 and AQUASIL upon
AQUASIL upon Sterilization (%)scriptive
Disinfection (%)
97 98.4
1A 1B 1C 3A 3B 3C

Graph (I, II, III, IV, V, VI): Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AFFINIS, SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AFFINIS, laboratory directors in 2000 revealed that the majority of
SPEEDEX and AQUASIL (%) impressions were made of PVS (57%) or polyether (27%)
Group n Mean SD P
materials. Only 44% of the respondents said that they
Group 1A 10 97.6 0.318 >0.05
Group 1B 10 98.7 0.3128
knew if the received impressions were disinfected or not.
Group 1C 10 98.7 0.1823 Whereas, 23% had no idea about the methods used for
SD: Standard deviation disinfection and 47% did not know about the length of time
involved in disinfection. About 45% of the respondents
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AFFINIS, stated that they received inadequate information regarding
SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL on disinfection (%) the disinfection procedure. Thus, it shows that there was
Group n Mean SD P
definite lack of communication between team members,
Group 1A 10 97.6 0.318 >0.05
Group 1B 10 98.7 0.3128
and also, the problem was not only associated with the
Group 1C 10 98.7 0.1823 material being used for making impressions but the
SD: Standard deviation disinfection technique which was being used.[12]

Table 7: Descriptive statistics of elastic recovery of AFFINIS, Holtan et al. in 1991 conducted a study in which PVS
SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL on sterilization (%) impression material (President) was sterilized using
Group n Mean SD P steam autoclave and an ethylene oxide gas autoclave. He
Group 3A 10 99.0 0.2976 <0.05
Group 3B 10 98.6 0.2161
established that models made from ethylene oxide sterilized
Group 3C 10 98.6 0.2808 impressions were acceptable to use in fabricating fixed
SD: Standard deviation or removable prosthesis, while the models made from
impressions sterilized in a steam autoclave can be used for
days. To protect the dental clinicians, a standard protocol the fabrication of diagnostic casts and some transitional
for disinfection and sterilization of dental impressions prostheses, but not for routine construction of crowns or
is recommended.[11] A survey documented in U.S. dental fixed partial dentures.[7]
350 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

Table 8: Tukey pairwise comparisons grouping information an impression from mouth and cast is easiest in light bodied
using the Tukey method and 95% confidence of AFFINIS, silicones followed by light‑bodied polysulfides, heavy body
SPEEDEX, and AQUASIL on sterilization (%)
silicones, heavy body polysulfides, and polyethers. According
Factor n Mean Grouping Factor
3A 10 99.0 * 3A
to fracture mechanics theory, failure of an impression is due
3B 10 98.6 3B to the stresses at a critical or weak point. Therefore, modulus
3C 10 98.6 3C of elasticity and tear strength are related.[17,18]
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

Means that do not share a mark (*) are significantly different

Quadrafunctional hydrophilic property of the material is a
The impression materials should have acceptable combination of a cross‑linked polymer with an exclusive
mechanical properties so as to ensure that it can withstand surface active element. The excellent tear strength is
all the stresses produced during removal from mouth as
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

achieved by polymer chain of the material and the surface

well as retrieval from a plaster model without undergoing active agent responsible for their wettability comparable to
any change in dimensional stability and integrity, even after polyether impression materials. This unique modification
disinfection or steam autoclaving.[13] A good impression of PVS helps to record excellent surface details even in
material must excel in many factors besides the dimensional humid atmosphere. The quadrafunctional property of
accuracy. A dental impression material must have sufficient modified PVS offers very high tear strength shown by no
strength to allow retrieval of cast or model without tearing; other impression material.[19]
so, it must also have an adequate elastic recovery even after
disinfection and sterilization.[14] Hence, quadrafunctional hydrophilic impression materials
are a complete package and combination of properties of
PVS are frequently reported to be the most ideal polyether and addition‑cured impression materials. They
elastic impression materials because they exhibit better have wettability as good as polyether and also show good
elastic recovery and less permanent deformation than dimensional accuracy and high resistance to deformation
the other elastomers. Condensation silicones show with excellent surface details, and most importantly,
98.2%–99.6% elastic recovery while PVS shows 99.9% materials can be disinfected as well as sterilized without
elastic recovery, with the least permanent deformation any change in above‑mentioned properties.[19]
of. 03%–.5%.[9] Ideally, the material should show 0%
permanent deformation for complete elastic recovery, The autoclavable impression material available in market is
but this is not clinically significant.[14] All of the materials AFFINIS. This newly introduced PVS impression material
tested in the study should meet the requirement of ISO is accurate and dimensionally stable for clinical use when
4823, which requires >96.5% elastic recovery, i.e., a range steam autoclaved at 134°C for 18 min.[20]
of 1%–3% permanent deformation of a material. The
relative amount of permanent deformation following This study shows that the three elastomeric impression
strain in compression increases in the following order: materials tested can withstand higher temperature of
addition silicone, condensation silicone, polyether, and sterilization by steam autoclaving without significant
polysulfide.[13] effect on their elastic recovery. AFFINIS, the autoclavable
impression material, showed increase in elastic recovery
Blomberg et al. reported that PVS have sufficient elastic properties on treatment with chemical disinfection and
recovery to allow an impression to be poured only 6 min autoclave sterilization. Dental professionals may now
after removal from the mouth.[9] Marcinak and Draughn autoclave these materials in their day‑to‑day practice
evaluated the dimensional change in addition silicones by without any concern of alteration in physical properties
delaying the pouring of impressions from 2 h to 1 week. of the materials studied.
They concluded that these materials remained remarkably
accurate even after 1 week, with the greatest change at any CONCLUSION
time being 0.3%.[15] Lacy et al. measured the time‑dependent
accuracy of elastomeric impression materials and concluded Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following
that PVS were the most stable of all elastomers.[16] conclusions were drawn:
1. Untreated specimens of AFFINIS showed the
According to elastomer theory, shear modulus of an least elastic recovery compared to SPEEDEX and
impression material is directly related to the removal of AQUASIL, which were similar to each other
an impression from the mouth as well as poured gypsum 2. On chemical disinfection, elastic recovery of all the
model. On these grounds, it was concluded that removal of three impression materials was found to be similar
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019 351
 Gothwal, et al.: Comparative evaluation of elastic recovery of three different elastomeric impression materials

with AFFINIS showing the best results steam autoclave sterilization. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:519‑25.
8. Giammanco GM, Melilli D, Rallo A, Pecorella S, Mammina C,
3. On steam autoclaving, AFFINIS showed a remarkable
Pizzo G. Resistance to disinfection of a polymicrobial association
improvement in its elastic recovery, whereas there was contaminating the surface of elastomeric dental impressions. New
no significant change in elastic recovery of SPEEDEX Microbiol 2009;32:167‑72.
and AQUASIL 9. Blomberg PA, Mahmood S, Smales RJ, Makinson OF. Comparative
elasticity tests for elastomeric (non putty) impression materials. Aust
4. Considering the importance of need for sterilization Dent J 1992;37:346‑52.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/jips by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AW

of impressions, the three impression materials tested 10. ASTM International. ASTM D412‑06ae2, Standard Test Methods for
can be safely autoclaved without significantly affecting Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers – Tension. West
the elastic recovery from a clinical point of view. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2006.
11. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental
laboratory. Council on dental materials, instruments, and equipment.
nYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 11/28/2024

Financial support and sponsorship Council on dental practice. Council on dental therapeutics. J Am Dent
Nil. Assoc 1988;116:241‑8.
12. Kugel G, Perry RD, Ferrari M, Lalicata P. Disinfection and
Conflicts of interest communication practices: A survey of U.S. Dental laboratories. J Am
Dent Assoc 2000;131:786‑92.
There are no conflicts of interest. 13. Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic
addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials.
REFERENCES J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:151‑4.
14. Klooster J, Logan GI, Tjan AH. Effects of strain rate on the behavior
1. Rubel BS. Impression materials: A comparative review of impression of elastomeric impression. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:292‑8.
materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin 15. Marcinak CF, Draughn RA. Linear dimensional changes in addition
North Am 2007;51:629‑42, vi. curing silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:411‑3.
2. Craig RG, Powers JM. Restorative Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis, 16. Lacy AM, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendresen MD. Time‑dependent
MO: Mosby; 2002. p. 331, 332, 335, 339, 340, 363, 366. accuracy of elastomer impression materials. Part II: Polyether,
3. Al‑Jabrah O, Al‑Shumailan Y, Al‑Rashdan M. Antimicrobial effect of 4 polysulfides, and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329‑33.
disinfectants on alginate, polyether, and polyvinyl siloxane impression 17. Callister WD Jr. Materials science and Engineering. 1st ed. New York:
materials. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:299‑307. John Willey & Sons, Inc.; 1985. p. 362‑7.
4. Abdelaziz KM, Hassan AM, Hodges JS. Reproducibility of sterilized 18. Herfort TW, Gerberich WW, Macosko CW, Goodkind RJ. Tear strength
rubber impressions. Braz Dent J 2004;15:209‑13. of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:59‑62.
5. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: 19. Millar BJ, Sanjukta D. Effect of autoclave sterilisation on the
A review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent dimensional stability and tear strength of three silicone impression
1992;68:728‑32. materials. Open J Stomatol 2014;4:518‑26.
6. Shen C. Impression materials. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Philips’ Science 20. Reddy SM, Vijitha D, Karthikeyan S, Balasubramanian R, Satish A.
of Dental Materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2003. p. 224‑3. Evaluation of dimensional stability and accuracy of autoclavable
7. Holtan JR, Olin PS, Rudney JD. Dimensional stability of a polyvinyl siloxane impression material. J Indian Prosthodont Soc
polyvinylsiloxane impression material following ethylene oxide and 2013;13:546‑50.

Staying in touch with the journal

1) Table of Contents (TOC) email alert
Receive an email alert containing the TOC when a new complete issue of the journal is made available online. To register for TOC alerts go to
www.j‑ips.org/signup.asp.

2) RSS feeds
Really Simple Syndication (RSS) helps you to get alerts on new publication right on your desktop without going to the journal’s website.
You need a software (e.g. RSSReader, Feed Demon, FeedReader, My Yahoo!, NewsGator and NewzCrawler) to get advantage of this tool.
RSS feeds can also be read through FireFox or Microsoft Outlook 2007. Once any of these small (and mostly free) software is installed, add
www.j‑ips.org/rssfeed.asp as one of the feeds.

352 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society | Volume 19 | Issue 4 | October-December 2019