Table of Contents
ISRN Dentistry
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 341546, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/341546
Research Article

Accuracy of Single-Step versus 2-Step Double-Mix Impression Technique

Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics, and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Al. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75 Vila Universitária, 17012-901 Bauru, SP, Brazil

Received 30 April 2011; Accepted 19 June 2011

Academic Editors: H. S. Cardash and G. H. Sperber

Copyright © 2011 Eduardo Batista Franco et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the accuracy of dies obtained from single-step and 2-step double-mix impressions. Material and Methods. Impressions ( 𝑛 = 1 0 ) of a stainless steel die simulating a complete crown preparation were performed using a polyether (Impregum Soft Heavy and Light body) and a vinyl polysiloxane (Perfectim Blue Velvet and Flexi-Velvet) in two consistencies, in one or two (without relief) steps. Accuracy of the stone dies was accessed at a measuring microscope, using a metallic crown with perfect fit to the reference crown preparation. Data were submitted to 2-way ANOVA and Tukey test ( 𝛼 = 0 . 0 5 ). Results. The single-step technique resulted in slightly larger dies, while the 2-step technique without relief produced significantly smaller dies, when compared to the original stainless steel die. Stone dies obtained from 2-step polyether impressions were significantly smaller when compared to dies obtained from 2-step vinyl polysiloxane impressions (Impregum 2-step: −290.94 ± 71.64 μm; Perfectim 2-step: −201.86 ± 28.58 μm). No significant differences were observed in dies obtained from either polyether or vinyl polysiloxane with the single-step technique (Impregum single-step: 63.52 ± 16.60 μm; Perfectim single-step: 79.40 ± 14.11 μm). Conclusion. Higher discrepancies were detected for the 2-step impression technique without relief for the investigated materials.