International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Pour Cast from Different Elastomer Impression Techniques

Satheesh B Haralur, Majed S Toman, Abdullah A Al-Shahrani, Abdullah A Al-Qarni

Citation Information : Haralur SB, Toman MS, Al-Shahrani AA, Al-Qarni AA. Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Pour Cast from Different Elastomer Impression Techniques. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016; 6 (3):51-56.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1155

Published Online: 01-06-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



The elastomeric impression material is the most widely used impression material in contemporary dental practice; their accuracy is critical for the outcome of indirect restorations. The accurate duplicate cast obtained from single impression reduces the professional clinical time, patient inconvenience, and extra material cost.


To compare the accuracy of the cast obtained from various impression methods utilizing elastomer impression materials.

Materials and methods

The stainless steel working cast model assembly consisting of two abutments and one pontic area was fabricated. Two sets of six each custom aluminum trays were fabricated, with 5 mm spacer and 2 mm space. The impression methods evaluated in the study were additional silicone putty reline (two step), heavy-light body (one step), monophase (one step), and polyether (one step). Type IV gypsum casts were poured at intervals of 1, 12, 24, and 48 hours. The resultant cast was measured with a traveling microscope for comparative dimensional accuracy. The data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance test at significance level <0.05.


The die obtained from putty reline two-step impression techniques had the percentage of variation for the height -0.36 to -0.97% with 0.40 to 0.90% increase in diameter. One-step heavy-light body impression dies recorded the increased width by 0.50 to 0.80% and height reduced by - 0.73 to -1.21%. The resultant dies from additional silicone monophase impressions had a percentage of variation for width 1.20% and height by-1.34%. The similar value for width and height for polyether was -1.46% and -1.30% respectively.


Putty reline technique dies had better dimensional accuracy after repeated pour followed by dies from heavy-light body additional silicone impression.

Key message

The multiple pour cast from putty reline elastomeric impressions is clinically acceptable, while cast from polyether was smaller in dimension.

How to cite this article

Haralur SB, Toman MS, Al-Shahrani AA, Al-Qarni AA. Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Pour Cast from Different Elastomer Impression Techniques. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016;6(3):51-56.

PDF Share
  1. Indirect restoration use: a changing paradigm. J Am Dent Assoc 2012 Apr;143(4):398-400.
  2. Basic principles in impression making. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Jun;93(6):503-508.
  3. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Nov;68(5):728-732.
  4. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000 Feb;83(2):161-165.
  5. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Apr;29(4):357-361.
  6. Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 2010 Nov-Dec;41(10):845-853.
  7. Marginal integrity: clinical significance. J Dent 1994;22(Suppl 1):S9-S12.
  8. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 1985 Apr;53(4):484-490.
  9. Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials: a critical review of the literature. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2011 Dec;19(4):163-166.
  10. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008 Apr;99(4):274-281.
  11. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 1992 May;67(5):583-589.
  12. Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one-and two-step techniques with the use of putty/wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Nov;74(5):535-541.
  13. Effects of the setting stage on the accuracy of double-mix impressions made with addition-curing silicone. J Prosthet Dent 1994 Jul;72(1):78-84.
  14. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Dent 2004 Nov;32(8):603-609.
  15. Fine detail reproduction of very high viscosity poly (vinyl siloxane) impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 1989 Jul-Aug;2(4):368-370.
  16. Inorganic particle analysis of dental impression elastomers. Braz Dent J 2010;21(6):520-527.
  17. Effect of material bulk and undercuts on the accuracy of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1985 Dec;54(6):791-794.
  18. A comparison of accuracy of elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet Dent 1975 Sep;34(3):305-313.
  19. In vitro study of the number of surface defects in monophase and two-phase addition silicone impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1998 Jul;80(1):32-35.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.