Flow Under Pressure of Fifteen Impression Materials

Objectives: This study compares flow of fifteen different impression materials using a shark-fin apparatus.

Methods: Room temperature impression materials were mixed and carefully dispensed into the shark-fin receptacle. The housing of the device (the fixed mold and 275g weight) was placed over the receptacle. Sixty seconds following start of the mix, the shark-fin mold and weight were released and allowed to sink slowly into the paste. Ten minutes later, the molds were separated and the height of the shark fin was measured using a caliper accurate to 0.01mm.

Results:  Results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls for multiple comparisons. 

	Impression Material	Mean Shark Fin Height (mm),n=7	SD	Grouping*
1	Honigum (DMG)	24.11	1.31	A
2	Genie Light Body (Sultan Healthcare)	23.67	0.67	A,B
3	Impregum Garant Soft (3M ESPE)	22.77	0.88	A,B
4	Permadyne Garant (3M ESPE)	22.48	1.23	A,B,C
5	Examix NDS Injection Type (GC America Inc.)	20.81	1.9	B,C,D
6	Senn Light Body (GC America Inc.)	20.64	4.68	B,C,D
7	Imprint II Garant Light Body (3M ESPE)	20.49	3.12	B,C,D
8	Elite HD Lt Body Normal (Zhermack)	19.33	1.41	C,D,E
9	Splash Light Body (Discus Dental)	18.89	1.57	D,E
10	Take 1 Regular Set Wash (Kerr Corp.)	17.26	3.37	E,F
11	Precision Lite Viscosity (Discus Dental)	15.47	2.25	F,G
12	Standout Wash Fast Set (Kerr Corp.)	14.14	1.15	G,H
13	Impregum Penta Soft (3M ESPE)	13.91	2.87	G,H
14	Aquasil Ultra LV (Dentsply Int.)	13.64	0.94	G,H
14	Elite HD Lt Body Fast (Zhermack)	12.09	0.67	H

*Means with the same letters are not significantly different (p<.05)

Conclusion: Groups 1-3 had statistically higher flowability than Groups 8-15 when tested at room temperature.