ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Hydrophilicity and Dimensional Accuracy of a New Vinyl Polysiloxane Impression Material: An Experimental Study.
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Higher hydrophilicity and dimensional accuracy can contribute to better accuracy of impression to ensure the clinical success of restoration fabrication. We aimed to investigate the hydrophilicity and dimensional accuracy of a newly formulated vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material and compare that with those of eight other commercially available VPS impression materials. Materials and Methods: The experimental VPS impression material was formulated by our proprietary resin and filler technologies. Capture (S&C Polymer), Express, Imprint 3 and Imprint 4 (3M ESPE), Start VPS (Danville), Honigum (DMG), Virtual (Ivoclar Vivadent), and Elite HD+ (Zhermack) were selected for comparison. The hydrophilicity was characterized by the contact angle (thickness × diameter = 2 × 20 mm, Results: The initial contact angles of Experimental are significantly lower than or similar to those of most impression materials for both light body and heavy body. However, Experimental showed significantly lower contact angle than other impression materials except statistically equivalent to Imprint 3, Imprint 4 at 10 sec and 30 sec and Virtual at 10 sec for light body, and significantly lower than most impression materials except higher than Imprint 4 at 10 sec and statistically equivalent to Imprint 4 at 30 sec for heavy body. Experimental exhibited significantly lower dimensional change than or like other impression materials at the beginning, 24 h. 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks for both light body and heavy body. Conclusion: The experimental VPS impression material displayed higher hydrophilicity and higher dimensional accuracy and stability compared to those of most commercially available VPS impression materials and is good to use in the fabrication of restorations for accurate impressions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.