Comparative analysis of elastomeric die materials for semidirect composite restorations

Joao Luiz de Abreu, Steven Katz, Cristian Sbardelotto, Dindo Mijares, Lukasz Witek, Paulo G. Coelho, Ronaldo Hirata

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

AIM: Die silicone materials are used to build chairside composite restorations. The purpose of this study was to compare the flowability, dimension accuracy, and tear strength of four elastomeric die materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Materials were divided into four groups: Mach-2 (M2), Scan Die (SD), GrandioSO Inlay System (GIS), and Impregum-F (IM). Flowability analysis was carried out using the shark fin test (SFT). For dimension accuracy, impressions were taken from a premolar Class I preparation and an elastomeric model was cast. Composite resin restorations were built and positioned into the premolar for gap measurement. The mean gap length was divided into three levels: acceptable (A), not acceptable (NA), and misfit (M). For tear strength, strip specimens were made with a V-shaped notch (n = 6). The specimens were tested in a universal machine until tear. All data were analyzed statistically with a confidence interval of 95%. RESULTS: GIS showed the lowest flowability values, with no differences between IM, M2, and SD. For dimension accuracy, IM showed 100% 'A' gap values, followed by M2 (80%), SD (60%), and GIS (60%). For tear strength, IM showed the highest values, followed by M2, GIS, and SD. CONCLUSIONS: M2, SD, and IM had similar flowability, while GIS had the lowest. IM presented higher tear strength than M2, followed by GIS and SD. IM showed the highest degrees of acceptable gap filling, followed by M2.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)344-354
Number of pages11
JournalThe international journal of esthetic dentistry
Volume15
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2020

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative analysis of elastomeric die materials for semidirect composite restorations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this