English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression materials have application in a wide variety of situations in both fixed and removable prosthodontics. A major limitation of VPS impression materials is their hydrophobicity. There are two aspects of this problem, the wettability of the polymerized impression by dental gypsum materials and the ability of the unpolymerized material to wet intraoral tissues. To address this problem, manufacturers have added surfactants and labelled these new products as "hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane." The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of four hydrophilic VPS impression materials, when used under dry, moist, and wet conditions. A total of 180 samples were made of stainless steel die similar to as described in ADA sp. no. 19. The die was scored with three horizontal and two vertical lines. Impressions were made under dry, moist and wet conditions. Dimensional accuracy was measured by comparing the length of the middle horizontal line in each impression to the same line on the metal die, by using Universal Length Measuring machine. A 2-way ANOVA was performed on the percentage change data for measured lengths of the 4 impression materials under the 3 conditions to evaluate dimensional accuracy. Surface detail was evaluated in two ways: (1) by use of criteria similar to ADA sp. no. 19 for detail reproduction, and (2) by use of a method that categorized the impressions as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on their surface characteristics: presence of pits, voids, or roughness. Pearson X2 (α = 0.05) was used to compare surface detail reproduction results. Conditions (dry, moist, and wet) did not cause significant adverse effects on the dimensional accuracy of all the four material. With both surface detail analyses, dry, moist, and wet conditions had a significant effect on the detail reproduction of all the four materials (P &lt; 0.05). The study concluded that the dimensional accuracy of all the four impression materials tested was well within ADA standards. Best surface detail results were obtained only under dry conditions for all the four materials.

the journal of indian prosthodontic society

A Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Detail Reproduction of Four Hydrophilic Vinyl Polysiloxane Impression Materials Tested Under Dry, Moist, and Wet Conditions-An In Vitro Study