Contact angle comparison of two elastomeric impression materials during initial setting.

Usama Nassar 1, Faraz Tavoossi 1, Yan Wen Pan 1, Nathan Milavong 1, Giseon Heo 1, John A. Nychka 1,2
1 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
2 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Introduction: Hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials is a key property in producing an accurate impression in prosthodontic treatment.
Aim: To study the hydrophilicity (wettability) of two different elastomeric impression materials in vitro by comparing the initial water contact angles on five materials during setting.
Materials and methods: Vinyl polysiloxane VPS (Imprint 4 Light and Super Quick Heavy) and Vinyl polyether silicone VPES (EXA’lence Light Regular, Light Fast and Heavy Fast set) were used. The leveled material surface received 1-μl droplet of deionized water 15 seconds after dispensing the impression material. Contact angles were measured at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 seconds using a drop shape analysis machine. The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA with time as a within-subjects factor and material as a between-subjects factor (α=0.05).
Results: All material had high contact angles at time 0 (T1). Imprint 4 had lower contact angles than EXA’lence at all times. There was a statistically significant difference in contact angles of all EXA’lence materials compared to Imprint 4 when not accounting for time (P < .001). When time was factored in, there was no significant difference at T1 only (P = .08). There was no significant difference among the three EXA’lence materials (P > .990) at all-time points. However, there was a significant difference between Imprint 4 materials with Imprint 4 Super Quick Heavy having lower means than Imprint 4 Light (P = .001). This was true for all time points except T1.
Conclusions: Despite the high contact angle values at time 0 (T1), both materials reached a significant hydrophilic level with Imprint 4 having drastically lower mean values.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62838/ASMJ.2024.2.03