Impression Materials in Fixed Prosthodontics: Influence of

Choice on Clinical Procedure

Techkouhie A. Hamalian, DChD,1 Elie Nasr, DChD,2 & José J. Chidiac, DChD, MSc3
1
Resident, Division of Prosthodontics, Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, New York, NY
2
Lecturer, Faculty of Dentistry, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon
3
Professor, School of Dentistry, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon

Keywords Abstract
Impression; models; fixed prosthodontics;
physical properties. The purpose of this article is to review impression materials used for fabricating fixed
restorations in dentistry. Their compositions, properties, advantages, and disadvantages
Correspondence are presented and compared. How these properties influence clinical decisions is also
Jose J. Chidiac, School of Dentistry, described. This review helps the clinician choose which material is more suitable for a
Lebanese University, PO Box 40105, Baabda, specific case. A broad search of the published literature was performed using Medline to
Lebanon. E-mail: [email protected] identify pertinent current articles. Textbooks, the Internet, and manufacturers’ literature
were also used to supplement this information. It is limited to impression materials
Accepted March 25, 2010
used in fixed prosthodontics. The review gives basic knowledge of ideal impression
material properties and discusses traditional and, primarily, more recently developed
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x
products, such as polyethers, poly(vinyl siloxane), polysulfides, and condensation
silicone materials. Clear advantages and disadvantages for these impression materials
are provided along with the role that compositional variations have on the outcome
of the impression. This should enable clinicians and technicians to easily identify the
important physical properties of each type of impression material and their primary
clinical indications.

The success rate of prosthetic tasks relies on several factors the master cast made of gypsum. In the future, intraoral chair-
including dimensional accuracy, detail reproduction of impres- side scanners (e.g., the CEREC-Sirona dental systems) might
sions, and the corresponding models from which a restoration replace the need for making impressions. Digital impressions
can be manufactured in the laboratory.1 This success rate is im- will be sent to the laboratory where the technician will digi-
periled when one looks at clinical studies. Impression making is tally cut and mark the margins, thus eliminating the impression
an important step to get a perfect cast, as the aim of an impres- step.
sion is to produce a dimensionally stable “negative” to serve as Until this technical skill becomes a common procedure, the
the cast mold. To attain this goal, many impression materials are use of conventional impressions is still the gold standard for
suitable for use. The materials should reproduce the static and dentists. To be accurate, these impressions need good impres-
oral structures accurately for an optimum cast.2 The exactitude sion materials.
of the final restorations depends greatly on the impression ma- The aim of this review is to give a detailed overview of all
terials and techniques used. In fact, the accurate reproduction appropriate dental impression materials for fixed prosthodon-
of preparation margins in an impression is a necessary require- tics. An emphasis on clinical implications in relation to their
ment for achieving good marginal quality. In vitro, the marginal properties will also be given.
precision of a dental restoration is 50 µm on average.3-5 This
margin is the sum of all relative and absolute errors accumu-
lated throughout the process, starting from the impression until
Brief history of dental impression
the restoration is finally produced. It is therefore important to
materials
have a minimal error rate in each stage to reduce the cumulative
effect of all the steps (e.g., using a CAD/CAM system). Despite In the 1950s and 1960s, hydrocolloids were the preferred im-
rapid technical progress in the CAD/CAM field, conventional pression materials. Since the introduction of hydrocolloids in
impressions are still required for transporting information from the mid-1930s, the impression of undercuts became possible.
the dentist to the dental laboratory. CAD/CAM systems (such In the 1950s, polysulfides and condensation reaction silicones
as Procera, Everest Kavo, Lava 3M) scan the finish line from (C-type silicones) were used reliably in fixed prosthodontics.

c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160  153
Impression Materials: A Review Hamalian et al

The great disadvantage of all these dental materials was the distortion.13 Thus, the minimum thickness of the material in
shrinkage over a period of several hours, intrinsic to the sys- the tray should be three to four times more than the largest
tem. With hydrocolloids, shrinkage was due to the evapora- undercut. An excellent procedure to maximize the elastic re-
tion of water, while in condensation-cured elastomers, it was covery of the impression material is to eliminate or block out
the evaporation of low-molecular side products.6,7 In the late any undercuts in the tooth preparation. PVS showed the best
1960s, polyether, a hydrophilic product cured by the cationic elastic behavior, with over 99% elastic recovery, followed by
ring opening polymerization reaction, was introduced to the polyethers and polysulfides.10,16 Once mixed, PVS develops
market. Its high mechanical properties, good elastic recovery, elasticity rapidly and should be used as soon as possible, espe-
and small shrinkage made it superior to hydrocolloids and C- cially in high temperatures. On the contrary, polyethers remain
type materials. Ten years later, the hydrophobic addition-cured plastic for a longer period after being mixed,17 but their final
silicones [poly(vinyl siloxane)] (PVS) were introduced. The stiffness is still more than that of PVS, which may affect the
level of hydrophobicity was reduced by the addition of surfac- ease of removal from the mouth.
tants. PVS has a very high dimensional stability over time and
temperature, even in a moist environment; it is known for its Dimensional stability
superior elastic recovery. According to Christensen in 1997,
Ideally, the dimensional stability of an impression material re-
“The past 20 years have brought significant improvement in
flects its ability to maintain the accuracy of the impression over
polyether and [PVS] categories, and now they appear to be
time,10 thus giving the opportunity to pour it at the convenience
the most acceptable product categories for most prosthodontic
of the operator. In reality, it is usually a time-dependent proce-
uses. In 1997, three categories of impression materials domi-
dure, with greater dimensional accuracy occurring immediately
nate fixed, removable, and implant prosthodontic use: addition
upon polymerization completion, declining as the impression
reaction silicone, polyether, and reversible hydrocolloid, listed
is stored for extended periods of time.13,18-20 This is why these
in order of decreasing use.”8
materials should have a low shrinkage upon polymerizing and
remain stable. PVS materials possess almost ideal dimensional
Impression material general properties stability and can be poured within 1 to 2 weeks after making
the impression.10,11,13,18,21 They are followed by polyethers,
An ideal impression material should exhibit certain character-
but these can absorb water from the atmosphere and swell.22,23
istics in the clinical and laboratory environment. Clinically,
For maximum accuracy, it is recommended to pour them within
it should produce a dimensionally stable, accurate impression
1 hour of removal from the mouth. Other impression materi-
with optimal mechanical properties (optimal Young’s modulus,
als, such as condensation silicone and polysulfides, should be
yield strength, and thermal expansion coefficient) for adequate
poured no more than 30 minutes after removal from the mouth.
elastic recovery and to resist tearing. It should also set within
The volatile ethyl alcohol and water produced as byproducts of
a reasonable amount of time and demonstrate biocompatibil-
the setting reaction with condensation silicone and polysulfide
ity: hypoallergenic nature and minimal amount of toxicity. It
rubber, respectively, tend to evaporate from the surface of the set
should be hydrophilic for making a good impression and for
impression, resulting in distortion.24 All types of elastomeric
accurate pouring of multiple casts. It should not be affected
impression materials undergo shrinkage caused by polymeriza-
by dimensional accuracy upon disinfection. Finally, reasonable
tion, and materials with reaction byproducts undergo additional
cost is recommended.9-12
contraction. In numbers, the polysulfides and condensation sil-
This ideal type of impression material is difficult to obtain
icones have the largest dimensional change during setting, in
in reality. A detailed description of each property will help in
the range of −0.4% to −0.6%. PVS has the smallest change
understanding how they interact.
(−0.15%), followed by polyether (−0.2%).
Accuracy
Hydrophilic properties
According to American Dental Association specification #19,
Since the impression material is in close contact with wet soft
elastomeric impression materials used to fabricate precision
and hard tissue, hydrophilicity is one major feature of a mod-
castings must be able to reproduce fine detail of 25 µm or
ern precision impression material. The hydrophilic nature of
less.3 PVS impression materials can reproduce details of 1 to 2
an impression material relates to its ability to work, flow in a
µm.14 The various viscosities also play a role in the accuracy of
wet environment, and still provide accuracy in an impression.2
detail reproduction. In fact, the lower the viscosity, the better it
Hydrophobic materials exhibit a contact angle of 90◦ or greater
records fine detail. Putty materials cannot reproduce fine detail
with water, while hydrophilic materials have a lower con-
at the 25 µm level and are required only to record details of 75
tact angle. Hydrophilic materials contain the functional groups
µm.15
[carbonyl (C=O) and ether (C–O–C)] that attract and interact
with water molecules,25,26 whereas PVS contains hydrophobic
Elastic recovery
aliphatic hydrocarbon groups.1,10 Hydrophilic materials flow
Elastic recovery of an impression is defined as the ability of better in humid areas, such as subgingival areas, on mucosa,
a material to return to its original dimensions without signifi- and moist teeth. They present a higher precision and show a
cant distortion upon removal from the mouth.10 No impression lower risk of air bubbles trapping on the stone model. Despite
material has 100% elastic recovery, and for all impression mate- the hydrophility of polyethers and polysulfides, they require a
rials the greater the depth of undercut, the greater its permanent dry field for making impressions.

154 c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160 
Hamalian et al Impression Materials: A Review

Limitations of PVS involve its hydrophobic nature19,20,27-34 is a common occurrence due to the rigidity of polyether ma-
because of its chemical structure and high contact angles. terials, especially if multiple casts are poured from the same
Newer PVS formulas include nonionic surfactants, which im- impression.11
prove wettability and reduce contact angles.35-38 These im-
provements enhance surface detail reproduction by facilitating Viscosity
the wetting of unset material on moist oral tissues and tooth
The ability to cease flowing once the impression is fully seated
surfaces.39 It also becomes significantly easier to pour PVS
in the mouth is an important characteristic of impression ma-
materials without incorporating voids; however, this improve-
terials. This is often described as thixotropic behavior. Manu-
ment has little clinical value, as it is still impossible to make
facturers claim that when an impression material has high flow
an acceptable impression in a wet environment.13 Newer for-
under pressure, but low flow under gravity, such material shows
mulas seem to release the surfactant from the material sur-
thixotropy. Drip or run-off tests have been used to demonstrate
face. It is then diffused in the liquid; in fact, the material re-
this effect.48 The viscosity of a fluid is its resistance to flow.
mains hydrophobic despite all claims to the contrary.9,12,21,40,41
This parameter is the ratio of the shear stress to the shear rate.
Because of their hydrophilic nature, using polyether and
Shear stress (T) is the force per unit area acting on a fluid. Shear
polysulfide impression materials is more compatible with the
rate (γ ) is the slope of the velocity-distance curve, or velocity
inherent moisture present in mucosal tissues.2,10,11,21 More-
gradient of the material. Thus, flow properties can be dependent
over, the evidence suggests that polyether material is more
on shear rate, but they may also depend on the shear history of
likely to produce impressions with superior detail reproduc-
the material. Thixotropy occurs when shearing a fluid causes
tion in the presence of moisture;47 however, impression mate-
reversible structural breakdown.
rials with hydrophilic structures may also be prone to mois-
A number of investigations into the rheological behavior
ture absorption, resulting in modification of the dimensional
of elastomeric impression materials have been conducted, in-
accuracy.42
cluding the time-dependent viscoelastic behavior of the mixed
material,49,50 after which it undergoes crosslinking reactions,51
Flow characteristics, or rheological properties
which ultimately produce the final product. Initially, the mixed
Wettability or flowability of an impression material relates to materials are expected to behave as viscous liquids able to
the ability of the material to flow into small areas10 and repro- flow easily over prepared teeth, soft tissues, or restorations,
duce minute details.13 Impression materials with a low wetting to produce an accurate and detailed replica, but over clini-
angle flow extensively and are good candidates to be used in cally reasonable time periods develop elastic properties to re-
prosthodontics. These types of material produce impressions tain the shape and strength of the negative replica.51,52 The
with fewer voids and less entrapment of oral fluids, providing final impression must have an appropriate elastic modulus to
more accurate impressions.10,12 Most PVSs have a moderately permit its removal from the dental surfaces, including under-
high wetting angle and new PVSs have improved. Finally, im- cuts, without damage.53 Studies have shown mass loss over
pression materials need to readily flow into minute details in long periods for polyether impressions compared to PVS.54,55
the range of 20 to 70 µm, which is necessary for perfectly Viscoelastic materials are neither ideal solids nor ideal fluids,
adapted crowns and bridges.43-46 A light-body material pos- but show characteristics of both, so the shear stress depends
sesses excellent flow characteristics, but tends to flow off the on both strain and strain rate.56 The nature of such behavior
preparation. The newer PVS and polyether materials have been often depends on the strain rate, with more fluid-like char-
modified to become thixotropic: they remain in place where acteristics exhibited at low strain rates and more solid-like
syringed, but flow when the heavier body tray materials are (elastic) characteristics at high strain rates. For the polymer-
placed on top.13 The intrinsic benefits of these thixotropic ma- izing, freshly mixed dental impression materials, one would
terials are controlled flow out of the syringe, and the ability to expect more fluid-like behavior initially, followed by more elas-
remain stable while in the tray with no uncontrolled intraoral tic behavior as crosslinking ensues at a given constant strain
flow. rate.
Elastomeric impression materials are found in different vis-
Flexibility cosities: from very low to very high viscosity putty materials.
The main difference between the different viscosities is the
Flexible impressions are easier to remove from the mouth when
amount of inert filler in the material. In fact, the low viscosity
set. It is therefore important to have an impression material flex-
material gives better fine detail reproduction but has greater
ible enough to overcome the undercuts in the adjacent teeth and
polymerization shrinkage during setting reaction. Thus, the op-
other intraoral structures (mandibular tori, pontics, embasures,
timum mixture for accurate impression making is to use as little
etc). Once polyether material has set, it tends to be the most
low-viscosity material as possible to capture the fine detail of
rigid impression material, the opposite of alginates, which are
the prepared margin, while the mass of the impression material
considered the most flexible of all. Polyethers are not recom-
should be made with high viscosity.13
mended in cases presenting long, thin preparations of periodon-
tally involved teeth. PVS is fairly stiff, and depending on the
Deformation and tear energy
viscosity of the material, flows readily to capture areas of de-
tail. Clinical studies have shown that viscosity is the important According to Chai et al, three mechanical properties of elas-
factor in producing impressions and dies with minimal bubbles tomeric impression materials are clinically relevant: the yield
and maximum detail.10 In fact, fracture of delicate gypsum dies strength, the strain at yield point, and the tear energy.57 The

c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160  155
Impression Materials: A Review Hamalian et al

yield strength determines the ability of the impression to with- Description of impression material
stand stress without permanent deformation. The strain at yield families
point indicates the amount of undercut an impression material
can overcome without permanent elastic deformation, and the The choice of impression materials depends mainly on the sub-
tear energy indicates the resistance to tear of the material after jective choice of the operator. It is based on personal prefer-
setting.10,11,58 Where subgingival margins are concerned, this ences, handling, and the impression techniques used. In recent
can be an important criterion. A performing material should dis- years, dentists have tended to use PVS and polyethers because
play high tear energy and adequate elastic recovery and should of their improved physical and mechanical properties.9,18-20
require the expenditure of large amounts of energy to initiate A detailed description of the different families of impression
and propagate tearing. materials will be given. It is important to note that if it is theoret-
Polysulfides display higher tear energy, but permanently ically possible to mix different materials from different family
deform after being stretched to 0.4%, which is the critical categories, doing so is not advised.
point of permanent deformation, and do not recover com-
pletely elastically.10,23 PVS and polyethers tear before the
Polyethers
limit of permanent deformation and are considered to have
the highest tear strengths.10 Therefore, their clinical use is Polyethers have been on the market since the late 1960s. Exam-
more suitable, as they will deform in the range of their yield ples are Impregum R
, Permadyne R
(3M ESPE R
, Minneapo-
strength.59 R
lis, MN), and Polygel (L.D. Caulk, Milford, DE). Polyethers
contained in the base paste are composed of a long-chain of
polyether copolymer with alternating oxygen atoms, methy-
lene groups, and reactive terminal groups. The ends of these
Material incompatibilities
macromolecular chains are converted into reactive rings, which
PVS and polyether materials may react with remnants of hy- transform into crosslinked final products. This is done under
drogen peroxide. PVS may generate foam, thus preventing an the influence of the cationic initiator of the catalyst paste. The
accurate reproduction of the preparation margin. reactive ring of the polyether is opened by a cationic catalyst
Metal salts, which are contained in many astringents or then, as a cation itself, attacks and opens other rings, creating a
retraction solutions with adrenalin and ferric sulphate used chain reaction. Whenever a ring is opened, the opening cationic
for haemostasis, may inhibit the setting process of PVS and starter remains attached to the former ring, thus lengthening the
polyethers. The result is an insufficient setting of the mate- chain. This unique setting mechanism causes a “snap-set” be-
rial, especially in the critical sulcus region. Epinephrines and havior, which refers to the rapid transition from the working
aluminum sulfate have no inhibitory effect on impression ma- stage to the completed setting.71 This behavior is an advantage
terial polymerization.60 Also, unset residues of methacrylate preventing the material from setting before the working time is
composites used for abutment completion or core build-up, due and when it sets, it is immediate.72,73
or a temporary restoration of methacrylate, can interrupt the Polyethers are moderately hydrophilic and can capture ac-
setting process and, thus, have to be removed carefully with curate impressions in the presence of some saliva or blood;
alcohol, followed by water, then thoroughly dried. If large however, they require a dry preparation to make an acceptable
surfaces of dentin have been exposed during the preparation, impression. Because their wetting angle is low, they capture a
an immediate bonding of the surface is recommended.61,62 full arch impression easier than with PVS.10 Their ability to re-
The smear layer should be removed with alcohol. A better produce details is excellent, they are dimensionally stable, and
way to avoid interaction with impression materials, the inhi- they allow multiple pours of accurate casts for 1 to 2 weeks,
bition layer of bonding must be eliminated by curing the ad- provided there is no tearing of the impression. They are rigid
hesive with glycerin gel or DeOx (UltraDent, South Jordan, materials and are more difficult to remove than PVS.10,24 In fact,
UT). Plus, individual trays made from polymethylmethacry- significant force must be used to remove the impression, some-
late (auto-cured) must rest at least 12 hours to guarantee the times exceeding the tear strength of the material. Recent gen-
end of the shrinking process. Latex gloves used when work- erations have improved formulas such as the “soft” polyethers
ing with hand-mixed PVS putty materials can negatively in- (Impregum Soft and Impregum Penta Duo Soft, 3M/ESPE) that
fluence the setting behavior of the impression materials.63 The are easier to remove but still more rigid than PVS. Having high
polymerization of PVS can be inhibited by direct contact with tear strength, they do not tear easily, which allows the clini-
96% of latex products (gloves and rubber dams)64,65 or in- cian to get good subgingival detail on removal. However, the
directly by hands that had previously been wearing gloves.66 rigidity of polyether materials can be a disadvantage, particu-
Even intraoral contact of teeth and surrounding soft tissues larly when the patient has existing fixed prostheses or multiple
with latex gloves has been implicated with inhibition of PVS open gingival embrasures due to loss of periodontal support. In
polymerization.67-69 Vinyl gloves can be worn safely and have these cases, it is advisable to use a more flexible material and
no adverse effect on polymerization.64 No other impression to block the undercuts with utility wax before impression mak-
materials are affected by latex gloves.70 Cleaning agent rem- ing.13 Fracture of delicate gypsum dies is a common occurrence
nants, such as orange oil, ethanol, and chloroform, may also due to this rigidity.13 Strict disinfection guidelines should be
impair the setting process. Therefore, to avoid negative interac- respected with polyethers to prevent expansion of the material.
tions, the abutments should be carefully cleaned and rinsed with Spraying the impression with a disinfectant such as sodium
water. hypochlorite for 10 minutes is recommended,74 as is rinsing

156 c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160 
Hamalian et al Impression Materials: A Review

and drying immediately before pouring casts.75 Dimensional less-hydrophobic PVSs is the facility to pour the impression.40
expansion of a polyether impression can only be seen if it has Moisture from saliva or blood can interfere with accurate im-
absorbed moisture.76 The material’s taste is bitter. The setting pressions. Loss of detail at impression margins is caused by
time is short (from 4 to 5 minutes), and the set is not altered or many factors, and moisture presence must be considered.11,41
contaminated by latex gloves. PVS has the best elastic recovery (over 99%) of all available
impression materials,13,81 an excellent ability to reproduce de-
tail, and is dimensionally stable, which allows multiple pours
Poly(vinyl siloxane)
of accurate casts for several weeks.2,83 The material is moder-
PVS impression materials or addition-cured silicones (type A) ately rigid (less than polyethers), has good tear strength, and
have been on the market since the mid-1970s. Popular exam- can be more easily removed than polyether materials.83,84 PVS
ples are Express (3M Dental Products), Extrude (Kerr Corpo- are best used in conjunction with an acrylic resin custom tray.40
ration, Orange, CA), and Aquasil (Caulk/Denstply, Milford, Their setting time is relatively short (4 to 5 minutes). They are
DE). PVS has become the most widely used impression mate- clean, odorless, and tasteless. Refrigeration of the syringe ma-
rial in restorative dentistry.40 Also called addition silicone and terial will extend the working time approximately 1.5 minutes
vinylpolysiloxane, PVS exploits the principle of “addition re- without affecting the accuracy.85 This augmentation of working
action curing.” As opposed to condensation curing materials time is useful in full-arch impression making. PVS can be used
that experience shrinkage as a result of byproduct evaporation, with most disinfection protocols and may be cold sterilized
PVS remains dimensionally stable. The reaction involves the without danger of distortion.75
linking of a vinylsiloxane in the base material with a hydrogen
siloxane via a platinum catalyst.10,21 The reaction produces hy- Polysulfides
drogen, which is scavenged by platinum or palladium. PVS has
Polysulfides are also called thiocols or “rubber base” (e.g.,
the best fine detail reproduction and elastic recovery of all avail-
Permlastic, SDS/Kerr). The crosslinking of polysulfides is
able materials, and thus is the impression material of choice for
brought about by the polycondensation in which water is the
fixed prosthodontics.13,47 It is provided with a wide variety of
reaction product. Some polysulfides may be categorized as a
viscosities: from very low viscosity for use with a syringe or
toxic substance, primarily due to the heavy metal (lead) oxides
wash material to medium, high, and very high viscosity. The
contained in the reactor paste.86 The base consists of a polysul-
viscosity depends on the amount of silica filler, which results
fide polymer (terminal chain/side chain-SH groups), titanium
either as a putty or as a less viscous wash material. PVS has
dioxide, or silica. The accelerator (catalyst) is primarily lead
one disadvantage: it is susceptible to contamination. PVS con-
dioxide. The viscosity is altered by adding different amounts of
tamination is usually a result of sulfur or sulfur compounds10,13
titanium dioxide powder to the base. It sets by oxidation of the
such as with latex gloves or rubber dams.77 Small amounts of
–SH groups, which results in chain lengthening and crosslink-
sulfur interfere with the setting of the critical surface by con-
ing, giving it its elastomeric properties.10,24 Polysulfide impres-
taminating the chloroplantinic acid catalyst. A contaminated
sion materials are generally low to moderately hydrophilic and
impression is more likely to produce inaccuracies, therefore
make an accurate impression in the presence of some saliva or
leading to distortion.11 In fact, any contact of unpolymerized
even blood. They reproduce details with excellent results, but
PVS with latex will result in direct inhibition of the polymer-
their dimensional stability is only fair.18,20,21,24,87 They are not
ization of the material. This can also occur if the putty material
a rigid material, and impressions are easier to remove than with
is mixed while wearing gloves or if latex gloves are worn be-
polyethers or PVS. Plus, they generally capture a subgingival
fore mixing.13,77-79 Indirect inhibition of polymerization can
margin upon impression without tearing on removal, which is
occur intraorally when latex gloves contact tooth preparations
better than PVS. Compared to polyethers and silicones, they do
or the surrounding periodontium, or during gingival retraction
not have a good elastic recovery. After the clinically recogniz-
procedures.66,68,80 Sulfur-containing gingival retraction chem-
able hardening, the crosslinking continues. During this ongoing
icals may contribute to the inhibition.81,82 Another source of
reaction, the elasticity and elastic recovery increase consider-
contamination is the oxygen-inhibited layer on the surface of
ably. Polysulfide impressions should therefore be left in the
composites that appears immediately after curing. This thin
mouth another 5 minutes beyond the clinical set.88 The setting
layer causes impressions to remain tacky around new compos-
time is thus relatively long (12 minutes). Immediate pouring is
ite restorations.13 A film of unset material in isolated areas or
recommended. It may allow for more than one pour if it is not
the presence of a sticky substance on the surface of the im-
thin in areas. Finally, care should be taken during disinfection
pression is a sign of inhibited polymerization. Polyether and
procedures to avoid swelling of the impression if it is kept more
polysulfide materials also coat the preparations with a chemi-
than 10 minutes in disinfectant or water. The strong bitter taste
cal film that inhibits PVS’s set.9,13 The preparation and adjacent
is also a disadvantage.
soft tissues can be cleaned with 2% chlorhexidine to remove
contaminants.10 PVS is also thermally sensitive; its setting time
Condensation silicones
is proportional to temperature rise.13
PVS is generally hydrophobic. The new hydrophilic PVSs, The base of the condensation silicone category consists of poly-
like Aquasil,12,22 have improved wettability,9,12,33,40 but they dimethyl siloxane with hydroxyl-terminated groups and fillers.
are only clinically acceptable under dry conditions.43 The hy- The base may contain the reactor tetrafunctional alkoxysilanes,
drophilization of PVS is enhanced with the incorporation of which in the presence of a catalyst such as dibutyl or stan-
certain nonionic surfactants. The clinical advantage of these neous octoate, will react with the hydroxyl groups, splitting off

c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160  157
Impression Materials: A Review Hamalian et al

alcohol, and causing crosslinking. After curing, subsequent and Acknowledgments

inevitable evaporation of the alcohol results in shrinkage of the
material. A further problem encountered is the difficulty of ob- The authors would like to thank Dr. H. Abi Aad for his help in
taining the correct proportions when hand-mixing. This may reviewing the manuscript.
cause the working and setting time of the material to vary, thus
indirectly affecting the quality of the impression.81,89 Popular
brands are Optosil/Xantopren (Heraeus Kulzer, South Bend,
IN), and Speedex (Coltene Whaledent, New York, NY). References
1. German MJ, Carrick TE, McCabe JF: Surface detail reproduction
of elastomeric impression materials related to rheological
Material types and consistencies properties. Dent Mater 2008;24:951-956
according to ISO 4823:2000 2. Rubel BS: Impression materials: a comparative review of
impression materials most commonly used in restorative
The accuracy of any impression is closely related to the vis- dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:629-646
cosity of the setting material. In fact, the ISO standard for 3. Tjan AH, Li T, Logan GI, et al: Marginal accuracy of complete
elastomeric impression materials characterizes materials ac- crowns made from alternative casting alloys. J Prosthet Dent
cording to their consistency: Type 0 (putty) and type 1 (heavy- 1991;66:157-164
bodied) have consistencies ≤ 35 mm, and impressions with 4. Tinschert J, Natt G, Mautsch W, et al: Marginal fit of alumina-
and zirconia-based fixed partial dentures produced by a
these materials should be made in one or two steps. Type 2
CAD/CAM system. Oper Dent 2001;26:367-374
(medium-bodied) has a consistency between 31 to 41 mm, and 5. Gelbard S, Aoskar Y, Zalkind M, et al: Effect of impression
impressions are made in one step. Finally, type 3 (light-bodied) materials and techniques on the marginal fit of metal castings.
has a consistency ≥ 36 mm, and a syringe is used for making J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:1-6
the impression.90 6. Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL: Long-term dimensional
stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil
1983;10:325-333
7. Lin CC, Donegan SJ, Dhuru VB: Accuracy of impression
Presentation
materials for complete-arch fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet
Most materials are provided as base/catalyst systems. They are Dent 1988;59:288-291
provided in cartridges (Pentamix, 3M ESPE) or impression 8. Christensen GJ: What category of impression material is best for
guns (Denstply/Caulk or 3M ESPE) for auto-mixing and tubes your practice? J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:1026-1028
or containers for hand spatulation. Hand mixing of putty de- 9. Mandikos MN: Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials: an
update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 1998;43:428-434
pends on the initial temperature of the pastes. The initial high
10. Craig RG: Restorative Dental Materials (ed 11). St Louis,
temperature reduces the working time. Auto-mixing products Elsevier, 2001, p. 12
require no mixing pads or spatulation, and they are less time 11. Anusavice KJ: Philips’ Science of Dental Materials (ed 11).
consuming. There may be less waste of materials associated Philadelphia, Saunders, 2003, p. 12
with mechanically mixing systems91 because they are loaded 12. Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, et al: Hydrophobic
from the dispenser directly into the syringe or tray.91,92 This polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: dimensional accuracy,
technique is more homogeneous and bubble-free, with fewer wettability, and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont
inherent voids, resulting in more accurate casts. There is no 1991;4:240-248
risk of negative interaction with gloves.93,94 13. Donovan TE, Chee WWL: A review of contemporary impression
materials and techniques. Dent Clin N Am 2004;48:445-470
14. Pant R, Juszczyk AS, Clark RFK, et al: Long–term dimensional
stability and reproduction of surface detail of four polyvinyl
Conclusion siloxane duplicating materials. J Dent 2008;36:456-461
15. Chee WWL, Donovan TE: Fine detail reproduction of very high
An ideal impression material is still difficult to find. For every viscosity polyvinylsiloxane impression materials. Int J
physical property there is another affecting it or an environ- Prosthodont 1989;2:368-370
mental factor modifying it. CAD/CAM systems are progress- 16. Klooster J, Logan GI, Tjan AH: Effects of strain rate on the
ing rapidly; in the near future, they might become accessible behavior of elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent
to everyone, and impressions will be easier and more precise. 1991;66:292-298
The practitioner should be aware of all impression material 17. McCabe JF, Ariwaka H: Rheological properties of elastomeric
properties and their interactions to know the limitations of impression materials before and during setting. J Dent Res
each product when using it, even under the best conditions 1998;77:1874-1880
available. Making an acceptable impression depends on intrin- 18. Shen C: Impression materials. In: Anusavice KJ (ed): Philips’
Science of Dental Materials (ed 11). Philadelphia, Saunders,
sic factors in relation to the material properties and extrin-
2003, pp. 210-230
sic factors like the oral environment (blood, saliva, dry condi- 19. Craig RG, Urquiola NJ, Liu CC: Comparison of commercial
tions), the skills of the operators (dentist, dental assistant), and elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 1990;15:94-104
the ability to pour the impressions within minutes. All these 20. Williams PT. Jackson DG, Bergman W: An evaluation of the
factors give an accurate and reliable impression as the final time-dependant dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric
result. impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:120-125

158 c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160 
Hamalian et al Impression Materials: A Review

21. Derrien G, Le Menn G: Evaluation of detail reproduction for accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl
three die materials by using scanning electron microscopy and siloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist and wet
two-dimensional profilometry. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:1-7 conditions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:365-372
22. Lacy AM, Bellman T, Fukui H, et al: Time-dependent accuracy of 45. Bindl A, Mormann WH: Marginal and internal fit of all-cermaic
elastomeric impression materials. Part II. Polyether, polysulfides, CAD/Cam crown copings on chmafer preparations. J Oral
and polyvinyl siloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329-333 Rehabil 2005;32:441-447
23. Williams PT, Jackson DG, Bergman W: An evaluation of the 46. Boeckler AF, Stadler A, Jurgen M: The significance of marginal
time-dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric gap and overextension measurement in the evaluation of the fit of
materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:120-125 complete crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:1-12
24. Giordano R 2nd: Impression materials: basic properties. Gen 47. Michalakis KX, Bakopoulou A, Hirayama H, et al: Pre and post
Dent 2000;48:510-516 set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.
25. McMurry J: Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry (ed 4). Pacific J Prosthodont 2007;16:238-248
Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1998, pp. 36-45 48. Zech J, Reusch B: Rheological properties of different type 3 PVS
26. Anusavice KJ: Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials (ed 11). [sic] impression materials. J Dent Res 1999;78:317(Abstract no
Philadelphia, Saunders, 2003, pp. 205-231 1692). Cited in: Martinez JE, Combe EC, Pesun IJ: Rheological
27. McCabe JF, Carrick TE: Recording surface detail on moist properties of vinyl polysiloxane impression pastes. Dent Mater
surfaces with elastomeric impression materials. Eur J 2001;17:471-476
Prosthodont Restor Dent 2006;14:42-46 49. Braden M: Characterization of the setting process in dental
28. Walker MP, Petrie CS, Haj-Ali R, et al: Moisture effect on polysulfide rubbers. J Dent Res 1966;45:1065-1071
polyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail 50. Omori K, Arikawa H: Rheological properties of elastomeric
reproduction. J Prosthodont 2005;14:158-163 impression materials based on surface compressive strength.
29. Pratten DH, Craig RG: Wettability of a hydrophilic addition J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:320-327
silicone impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:197-202 51. Herfort TW, Gerberich WW, Macosko CW, et al: Viscosity of
30. Mc Murry J: Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry: Their elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent
Correlation with Chemical Structure (ed 4). Pacific Grove, CA, 1977;38:396-404
Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1998, pp. 36-45 52. Craig RG: Restorative Dental Materials (ed 11). St. Louis,
31. Johnson GH, Lepe X, Aw TC: The effect of surface moisture on Mosby, 2001, pp. 330-369
detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 53. Powers JM, Wataha JC: Dental Materials. Properties and
2003;90:354-364 Manipulation (ed 7). St. Louis, Mosby, 2000, pp. 139-140,
32. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E: Impression materials: effect of 162-177
hydrophilicity and viscosity on ability to displace water from 54. Lepe X, Johnson GH, Berg JC: Surface characteristics of
dentin surfaces. Scand J Dent Res 1988;96:253-259. polyether and addition silicone impression materials after long
33. Boening KW, Walter MH, Schuette U: Clinical significance of term disinfection. J Prothet Dent 1995;74:181-186
surface activation of silicone impression materials. J Dent 55. Lepe X, Johnson GH, Berg JC, et al: Wettability, imbibitions and
1998;26:447-452 mass change of disinfected low viscosity impression materials.
34. Mandikos MN: Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials:an J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:268-276
update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 1998;43:428-434 56. Darby R: Viscoelastic Fluids: An Introduction to Their Properties
35. Craig RG, O’Brien WJ, Powers JM: Dental Materials. Properties and Behavior. New York, Dekker, 1976, pp. 76-77
and Manipulation (ed 6). St. Louis, Mosby, 1996, pp. 136-177 57. Chai J, Takahashi Y, Lautemschlager EP: Clinically relevant
36. Craig RG, Powers JM: Restorative Dental Materials (ed 11). St mechanical properties of elastomeric impression material. Int J
Louis, Mosby, 2001, pp. 348-367 Prosthodont 1998;11:219-223
37. Pratten DH, Craig RG: Wettability of a hydrophilic addition 58. Little J: Dental Management of the Medically Compromised
silicone impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:197-202 Patient (ed 6). St. Louis, Elsevier, 2002, pp. 545-547
38. Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, et al: Hydrophilic 59. Hondrum SO: Tear and energy properties of three impression
poly(vinyl siloxane) impression materials:dimensional accuracy, materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:517-552
wettability, and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont 60. de Carnago LM, Chee WWL, Donovan TE: Inhibition of
1991;4:240-248 polymerisation of polyvinylsiloxane by medicaments used on
39. Ritter AV, Swift EJ Jr: Medium-viscosity polyether impression gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:114-117
material: a case report. Compend Contin Educ Dent 61. Bertschinger C, Paul SJ, Luthy H, et al: Dual application of
2000;21:993-996, 998, 1000 dentin bonding agents. Effect on bond strength. Am J Dent
40. Chee WWL, Donavan TE: Polyvinylsiloxane impression 1996;9:115-119
materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 62. Paul SJ, Schärer P: The dual bonding technique. A modified
1992;68:728-732 method to improve adhesive luting procedures. Int J Periodontics
41. Balkenhol M, Haunschild S, Lochnit G, et al: Surfactant release Restorative Dent 1997;17:536-545
from hydrophilized vinylpolysiloxanes. J Dent Res 2009; 63. Kahn RL, Donovan TE: A pilot study of polymerization
88:668-672 inhibition of poly (vinyl siloxane) materials by latex gloves. Int J
42. Walker MP, Petrie CS, Haj-Ali R, et al: Moisture effect on Prosthodont 1989;2:128-130
plyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail 64. Kahn RL, Donovan TE, Chee WWL: Interaction of gloves and
reproduction. J Prosthodont 2005;14:158-163 rubber dam with poly (vinyl siloxane) impression material: a
43. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett, LD, et al: Fundamentals of screening test. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2:342-346
Fixed Prosthodontics (ed 3). Chicago, Quintessence, 1997, pp. 65. Noonan JE, Goldfogel MH, Lambert RL: Inhibited set of the
299-300 surface of addition silicones in contact with rubber dam. Oper
44. Petrie CS, Walker MP, O’Mahony AM, et al: Dimensional Dent 1986;2:46-48

c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160  159
Impression Materials: A Review Hamalian et al

66. Reitz CD, Clark NP: The setting of vinyl polysiloxane and 81. Anusavice KJ: Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials (ed 11).
condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. Philadelphia, Saunders, 2003, p. 216
J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116:371-375 82. Boening KW, Walter MH, Schuette U: Clinical significance of
67. Chee WWL, Donovan TE, Kahn RL: Indirect inhibition of surface activation of silicone impression materials. J Dent
polymerization of a polyvinyl impression material : a case report. 1998;26:447-452
Quintessence Int 1991;22:133-135 83. Lacy AM, Fukui H, Bellman T, et al: Time-dependant accuracy of
68. Kahn RL, Donovan TE: A Pilot study of polymerization elastomeric impression materials. Part II: polyether, polysulfides,
inhibition of poly (vinyl siloxane) materials by latex gloves. Int J and polyvinylsiloxane. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:329-333
Prosthodont 1989;2:128-130 84. Donovan TE: A review of contemporary impression materials.
69. Kahn RL, Donovan TE, Chee WWL: Interaction of latex gloves Calif Inst Cont Educ 1988;27:9-19
and poly (vinyl siloxane) impression materials: a screening 85. Chew CL, Chee WWL, Donovan TE: The influence of
survey. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2:342-346 temperature on the dimensional stability of poly (vinyl-siloxane)
70. Baumann MA: The influence of dental gloves on the setting of impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:528-532
impression materials. Br Dent J 1995;179:130-135 86. Spranley TJ, Gettleman L, Zimmerman KL: Acute tissue
71. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL: Impression materials. In Powers JM, irritation of polysulfide rubber impression materials. J Dent Res
Sakaguchi RL (eds): Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials (ed 1983;62:548-551
12). St. Louis, Mosby, 2006, pp. 294-295 87. Ciesco JN, Mlaone WF, Sandrik JL, et al: Comparison of
72. Phoenix RD: Stewart’s Clinical Removable Partial elasotmeric materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet
Prosthodontics (ed 3). Chicago, Quintessence, 2002, pp. 162-167 Dent 1981;45:89-94
73. Adabo GL, Zanarotti E, Fonseca RG, et al: Effect of disinfectant 88. Nayyar A, Tomlins CD, Fairhurst CW, et al: Comparison of some
agents on dimensional stability of elastomeric impression properties of polyether and polysulfide materials. J Prosthet Dent
materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:621-624 1979;42:163-167
74. Johnson GH, Drennon DG, Powell GL: Accuracy of elastomeric 89. Wöstmann B: Zum gegenwärtigen stand der abformung in der
impression materials disinfected by immersion. J Am Dent Assoc zahnheilkunde. Berlin, Quintessenz, 1998. In: A Guideline for
1988;116:525-530 Excellent Impressions in Theory and Practice. Espertise
75. Cottone JA, Molinari JA: State-of-the-art infection control in Magazine. Minneapolis, 3M ESPE 2008:1-60
dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:33-41 90. ISO 4823 for Elastomeric Impression Materials. International
76. Hembree JH, Jr., Nunez LJ: Effect of moisture on polyether Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee: Tc
impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1974;89:1134-1136 106/Sc 2; 2000
77. Noonan JE, Goldfogel MH, Lambert RL: Inhibited set of the 91. Craig RG: Evaluation of an automatic mixing system for an
surface of addition silicones in contact with rubber dam. Oper addition silicone impression material. J Am Dent Assoc
Dent 1986;2:46-48 1985;110:213-215
78. Neissen LC, Strassler H, Levinson PD, et al: Effect of latex 92. Soh G, Chong YH: Defects in automixed addition silicone
gloves on setting time of polyvinylsiloxane putty impression elastomers prepared by puttywash impression technique. J Oral
material. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:128-129 Rehabil 1991;18:547-553
79. Reitz CD, Clark NP: The setting of vinyl-polysiloxane and 93. Keck SC: Automixing: A new concept in elastomeric impression
condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. material delivery system. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:
J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116:371-375 479-483
80. Kahn RL, Donovan TE: A pilot study of polymerization 94. Di Felice R, Scotti R, Belser UC: The influence of the mixing
inhibition of poly (vinyl siloxane) materials by latex gloves. Int J technique on the content of voids in two polyether. Schweiz
Prosthodont 1989;2:128-130 Monatsschr Zahnmed 2002;112:12-16

160 c 2011 by The American College of Prosthodontists

Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2011) 153–160