Page 33 - COS-FOD2015

NZarina et al.

this study clearly showed that Express Putty- Conclusion
Light performed better than all impression ma-
In conclusion, the measurement of mean differ-
terials tested. With regard of groove shaped, it
ence in depth is purely material and groove de-
was evident that Express Putty-Light recorded
pendent. Polyvinylsiloxane exhibited significant-
better surface detail reproduction with 1 mm
ly better surface detail reproduction compared
depth than polyether irrespective of its shape
to polyether with Express Putty-Light exhibiting
and consistencies. This finding corresponded
the least mean difference in depth. Dual phase
with the observation described earlier by John-
polyvinylsiloxane performed better than mo-
son et. al (8)
nophase impression materials. Shapes of
Nevertheless, contradictory results were ob- groove play an important role in determining of
served for U- and V- shaped of 2 mm depth. the flow and wettability of the impression mate-
Significant difference was only observed among rials.
PVS groups in the U- shaped groove of 2 mm.
Surface detail reproduction of V-shaped groove
Aquasil and Express dual phase showed better
is not influenced by depth. U-shaped groove
surface reproduction compared to Aquasil mo-
with 2 mm depth can be accurately reproduced
nophase. Express Putty-Light impression mate-
by dual phase polyvinylsiloxane indicating im-
material showed the most accurate surface de- pressions of U-shaped groove showed better
tail reproduction in U-shaped groove of 2 mm surface detail reproduction than V-shaped
depth.This is because in wide interface area, groove.
the hydrogen bond that existed within water

molecules is far apart thus reproducing weak
hydrogen bond and lowers its surface tension. Acknowledgments
This is further enhanced by the impression ma-
This study was supported by University of Ma-
terials which have an affinity towards water.
laya research grant (# PS 311-2007B). My ut-
Hence impression material can flow easily into
most gratitude to Associate Professor Kevin
U-shaped groove compared to V-shaped
H.K. Yip, Adjunct Professor at School of Dentis-
groove of 2 mm. In V-shaped groove of 2 mm
try, Charles Sturt University, Sydney Australia,
depth, no significant difference was detected for
for his guidance and assistance in the prepara-
all impression materials. It was expected that
tion of this manuscript.
dual phase PVS would showed significantly
lower mean difference in depth but it was not
so. In a narrow channel such as the V-shaped
References
groove, the attraction of water molecule atoms
to each other is stronger than the attraction be- 1. Craig RG and Powers JM (2002) In: Craig
tween the water molecule surface and subsur- RG, ed. Restorative Dental Materials pp.
face (23). As a result, the flow of any impres- 348-68,11th ed. St Louis: Mosby.
sion material on moist solid surface could be
2. Mandikos MN (1998) Polyvinyal siloxane
affected.
impression materials: An update on clinical
use. Aust Dent J 43, 428-33.

29