Page 31 - COS-FOD2015

NZarina et al.

reproduction of U- and V-shaped grooves of 1 amplified due to the hydrophobic nature of the
mm in depth, significant differences were only impression material as it tend to repel in the
detected between Impregum heavy/light, Im- presence of moisture on the prepared tooth and
pregum medium and Express putty/light. Signifi- the surrounding gingiva (10). McCabe & Carrick
cant difference was detected between Aquasil (2006) reported that polyether produced more
putty/light, Aquasil medium and Express putty/ accurate impressions on moist gypsum dies
light in the 2 mm deep U-shaped groove (Figure with V-shaped grooves of varying depth, 0.5 to
4). 1.8mm. While V-shaped groove may represent
tooth preparation margin when knife-edged and

bevelled margins are employed, U-shaped
Discussion grooves are likely to be formed by chamfer and
shoulder margins against the free gingiva
Obtaining an accurate surface details of a prep-
(Figure 1). This study provides an insights to-
aration using impression materials is a known
wards the accuracy of monophase and dual
clinical challenge as the material is required to
phase impression materials against groove ge-
flow in a confined space. This problem is further
ometry and depth of grooves.

Figure 4: Significant difference in U- and V- shaped groove

27