Tensile elastic recovery of elastomeric

impression materials
Nathaniel C. Lawson, MS,a John O. Burgess, DDS, MS,b and
Mark S. Litaker, PhDc
School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Birmingham, Ala
Statement of problem. Currently, a standard protocol exists to measure the elastic recovery of impression materials
from compressive strain; however, no protocol exists for the measurement of elastic recovery from tensile strain.
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare elastic recovery from tensile strain test with the ISO elastic recovery test for 5 vinyl polysiloxane materials (Aquasil Ultra, Examix, Genie, Imprint 3, and StandOut) and 1 hybrid
material (Senn).
Material and methods. Specimens (n=5) were fabricated in a brass mold and loaded in tension with a crosshead
speed of 300 mm/min to 50% or 100% strains. Two hours following specimen elongation, the change in length of the
specimens was measured. Additional specimens (n=5) were tested in tension until failure at 200 mm/min. The maximum elongation at failure was recorded. Elastic recovery specimens (n=4) were prepared for each material following
ISO standard 4823. The change in dimension of these specimens was measured following a 30% compressive strain.
Group means were compared using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer HSD test (=.05). Correlation between different
tests was evaluated using Pearsons correlation coefficient.
Results. Vinyl polysiloxane materials of varying composition demonstrated significantly different elastic recovery, and
the hybrid material demonstrated the least elastic recovery in both tests. All materials exceeded a 100% elongation
before failure. Significant linear correlation was found between means of the ISO method and those of a 100% tensile
strain (r2=0.69, P=.039), but not those of a 50% tensile strain (r2=0.56, P=.086).
Conclusions. Elastic recovery from compressive strain can only partially predict elastic recovery from tensile strain,
suggesting that elastic recovery from tensile strain is a relevant test. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:29-33)

Clinical Implications

Impressions of the dental arch containing large undercuts or requiring thin

sections of material (such as tight interproximal and subgingival spaces) are
susceptible to elastic deformation from tensile stresses. In these situations, it
is necessary to use a material that has sufficient elastic recovery from tensile
strain. The results of this study indicate that vinyl polysiloxane materials provided better elastic recovery than the hybrid material tested in tension.
To accurately replicate a tooth
structure, impression material must
not permanently deform while being
removed from the oral cavity.1 During removal, impression materials are

subjected to both compressive and

tensile forces. In fact, maximum tensile removal forces of impression materials have been shown to be greater
than maximum compressive seating

forces,2 especially when materials are

stretched in tension as they are pulled
from undercuts, sharp line angles,
and interproximal spaces.3 Jrgensen
et al4 used mathematical modeling

Presented at the American Association for Dental Research annual meeting, New Orleans, La, March 2007.
DMD/PhD student, Department of Prosthodontics.
Professor and Assistant Dean for Clinical Research, Department of Prosthodontics.
c
Associate Professor, Department of Diagnostic Sciences.
a

Lawson et al

30

Volume 100 Issue 1

to determine that materials are elongated to 60% of their initial length
when stretched over prominent line
angles, assuming an undercut height
and depth of 1 mm and a 1-mm impression layer thickness. Percent
elongation increased with increasing
undercut dimensions and decreasing
impression material thickness.
Studies have compared the maximum elongation and tear energy (factor of tensile strength and elongation)
of elastomeric impression materials.5-8
While the maximum elongation of vinyl polysiloxane materials has been recorded to be as high as 80% (1988),9
94% (1991),10 and 630% (1998)11 of
the original length, maximum elongation is most clinically relevant when a
material can accurately recover to its
original length.
The 1968 British Standards Institution BS4269: Part 1 described a test
for measuring tensile elastic recovery
of elastomeric impression materials
from a 50% strain.12 Other investigators have explored tests for measuring elastic recovery from tensile
stain,13,14 shear strain,15 and bending
and torsion.16 ISO 4823, the current
standard for elastomeric impression
materials, specifies the requirements
for elastic recovery of elastomeric
impression material from a 30% compressive strain, but there is no current
standard for measuring deformation
of elastomeric impression materials
from tensile strain.17
The purpose of this study was to
examine the elastic recovery of 6 current elastomeric impression materials
after 50% and 100% tensile strain and
compare the results to their elastic recovery from compressive strain. The
maximum percent elongation of each
material was also determined. The
null hypotheses were that: (1) there
would be no difference between elastic recovery of the different materials,
and (2) there would not be a linear
correlation between elastic recovery
values when materials were subjected
to tensile and compressive strain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five vinyl polysiloxane materials
and 1 hybrid polyether/vinyl polysiloxane material were used in this
study (Table I). A custom brass mold
was fabricated by a manufacturer (3M
ESPE; Seefeld, Germany). The mold
was paddle shaped with a 2-mm-wide
and 1.5-mm-thick inner bar. A 20mm-long section of the inner bar was
delineated by 4 semicircular notches
in the mold (Fig. 1). Five specimens
were made for each material tested.
A timer was started as the impression
material was dispensed into the brass
mold. The mold was surrounded on
both sides by a mylar film (3M ESPE)
and pressed between 2 glass slides.
After a 25-second working time, the
specimen was placed in a water bath
(W13-D1; Haake, Karlsruhe, Germany) at 34C for the manufacturers
oral polymerization time. After polymerization, the specimen was removed from the water bath.
Flash was removed and the specimen was secured in a universal testing
machine (Zwick Z020; Zwick, Ulm,
Germany). After 1.5 minutes, the
specimen was loaded in tension to remove slack, and the distance between
the 2 clamps was recorded as an initial length. The specimen was loaded
in tension with a crosshead speed of
200 mm/min until the distance between the 2 clamps increased by 50%
or 100% of the initial length, taking 5
seconds or 10 seconds, respectively.
The tensile load was removed and
the specimens returned to their initial
length and were stored in room temperature air.
A control group of each material
(n=5) was prepared using the brass
mold and the same molds and fabrication times previously described. These
specimens were not loaded in tension
following polymerization. These specimens were fabricated to measure the
inherent shrinkage experienced by the
impression materials.
Two hours 15 minutes following
specimen deformation, the distance
between the centers of the semicircu-

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

lar notches on each side of the specimen was measured using a measuring
microscope (MM-40; Nikon Corp,
Tokyo, Japan). The average of the 2
distances was used as the final length.
The percentage of elastic recovery was
calculated using the formula: 100% [(final length control length) / control length] x 100%.
Maximum elongation in tensile train
Initially, specimens (n=5) were prepared and treated identically to elastic recovery from tensile strain specimens. Instead of the loading program
used in the elastic recovery protocol,
these specimens were loaded in tension to failure at 200 mm/min. The
length of the specimens at failure
was recorded as the final length. The
maximum elongation at failure was
recorded as: (failure length initial
length) / initial length.
Elastic recovery from compressive
strain
Elastic recovery from compressive
strain was measured according to the
specifications of ISO 4823 section
9.7.17 Specimens were prepared in a
cylindrical split mold, as previously
described for elastic recovery specimens. After polymerization of the
impression material, the mold was removed from the water bath, dried, and
placed in the ISO deformation device.
One minute following polymerization,
the specimen was compressed to 30%
of its original height. The material was
compressed for 1 to 2 seconds. After
allowing the material to recover for 2
minutes, the height of the specimen
was remeasured. Percent elastic recovery was calculated using the formula:
100% - [(final length initial length)
/ initial length] x 100%. All specimens
were cut in half and evaluated for air
voids. Specimens with voids were excluded and replaced.
Differences between percent elastic recovery (tensile and compressive)
among materials were analyzed using a 1-way ANOVA and a Tukey test

Lawson et al

31

July 2008

Table I. Impression materials evaluated

Material

Manufacturer

Type

Oral Polymerization
Time (min)

Lot

Aquasil Ultra

Dentsply Caulk,

Vinyl polysiloxane

041030

Vinyl polysiloxane

0603061

Vinyl polysiloxane

3:30

070725269

Vinyl polysiloxane

3:30

B246874

Milford, Del
GC America,

Examix

Alsip, Ill
Sultan Healthcare, Inc,

Genie

Englewood, NJ
Imprint 3

3M ESPE,
St. Paul, Minn

StandOut

Kerr Corp,

K246870
Vinyl polysiloxane

2:30

6-1030

Hybrid

0508222

Orange, Calif
Senn

GC America

1 Elastic recovery from tensile strain specimen (upper) and mold (lower).

(=.05). The linear association between mean elastic recovery from tension and elastic recovery from compression was evaluated using Pearsons
correlation coefficient (=.05).

RESULTS
Values are presented as percentage
of elastic recovery from 100% tensile
strain, 50% tensile strain, compressive strain, and percentage elongation

Lawson et al

prior to failure (Table II). The 1-way

ANOVA revealed significant differences in elastic recovery from tensile
strain (50% and 100%) and compressive strain among materials. The Tukey
test was used to divide the materials into significantly different groups
(indicated in Table II). All materials
provided percent elongations above
100% prior to failure.
To analyze the relationship between elastic recovery from tensile

strain and compressive strain, the

mean tensile elastic recovery of each
material from 50% strain and 100%
strain (Fig. 2) was plotted against
its corresponding mean compressive
elastic recovery value. Elastic recovery from 50% tensile elongation was
not significantly correlated with elastic recovery from compressive strain
(r2=0.56, P=.09). A significant correlation between tensile elastic recovery from 100% strain and compres-

32

Volume 100 Issue 1

Table II. Comparison of elastic properties of impression materials. Values presented are mean percentages (SD)
Material

100% Tension
n=5

50% Tension
n=5

Maximum Elongation
n=6

Compression
n=4

Imprint 3

99.91 (0.17)a

100.04 (0.10)a

238.24 (15.51)b,c

99.83 (0.005)a

Examix

99.85 (0.03)a

99.89 (0.05)a,b

278.30 (32.39)a,b

99.82 (0.01)a

StandOut

99.28 (0.05)b

99.72 (0.09)b

301.72 (35.69)a

99.74 (0.02)a

Aquasil Ultra

99.21 (0.15)b

99.91 (0.06)a,b

212.34 (13.04)c

99.58 (0.01)b

Senn

98.35 (0.15)c

99.36 (0.06)c

140.96 (20.02)d

99.34 (0.03)c

Genie

97.72 (0.25)d

99.13 (0.20)d

164.94 (27.80)d

99.53 (0.06)b

P values for overall comparison among materials were <.001 for all measurements.
Means with same lowercase superscripted letter are not significantly different for P>.05.

Recovery from 50% and 100%

Tensile Strain (%)

100.0
99.5
Senn
Genie
Aquasil
Stand Out
Examix
Imprint 3

99.0
98.5
98.0
97.5

99.35 99.45 99.55 99.65 99.75 99.85 99.95

Recovery from 30% Compressive Strain (%)

2 Elastic recovery from 50% (dark shapes) and 100% (light shapes) tensile strain versus elastic recovery from
compressive strain. r2=0.56 and P=.09 for 50% tensile strain and r2=0.69 and P=.04 for 100% tensile strain.
sive elastic recovery was discovered
(r2=0.69, P=.04), such that increased
tensile elastic recovery was associated
with increased compressive recovery.

DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates that elastomeric impression materials permanently deform following 50% and
100% tensile strains. Additionally,
different materials produce greater
elastic recovery from tensile strain
than others; thus, the results support rejection of the first null hypothesis. The variation in elastic recovery
among vinyl polysiloxane materials is
related to components of their composition, including the proportions
of base silica, copolymer, filler, and

chain extenders.18
Senn, the only nontraditional vinyl polysiloxane, consistently ranked
among the 2 materials with the least
elastic recovery. Senn is a class of
material termed hybrid which is a
polymer containing polyether and siloxane groups. Hybrid materials were
introduced to combine the wetting
abilities of polyether and the dimensional stability of vinyl polysiloxane
materials. Polyether materials yield
less elastic recovery than vinyl polysiloxane materials.6 Therefore, the reduced elastic recovery achieved from
hybrids may be attributed to the addition of polyether chemistry.
In this study, elastic recovery from
compressive strain and 100% tensile strain were significantly linearly

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

correlated; however, recovery from

compressive strain and 50% tensile
strain were not. Therefore, the second null hypothesis can only be partially rejected. Previous studies have
also explored the relation between
elastic recovery from compression
and tension. Mansfield and Wilson12
performed a similar study comparing recovery from 50% tensile strain
and compressive strain, concluding
that both recovery from compressive and tensile strain were necessary
tests. Blomberg et al14 found a strong
correlation between elastic recovery
from tensile and compressive strain
and concluded that only 1 method is
needed; however, Blombergs study
only examined 1 brand of vinyl polysiloxane and polyether material, while

Lawson et al

33

July 2008
the present study investigated 5 vinyl
polysiloxane materials. The results of
the present study agree with the results
of Manfield and Wilson12 and suggest
that elastic recovery from compressive strain and elastic recovery from
tensile strain are both distinctive and
clinically relevant properties.
This study also determined that
current vinyl polysiloxane materials
achieve maximum elongation values as high as 300% of their original
length, and all materials elongate over
100% of their initial length. Although
Jrgensen4 determined that average
impression materials are stretched
60% of their original length, the
amount which an impression material elongates increases as the dimensions of the undercut increase and the
impression materials thickness decreases. Therefore, it is plausible that
impression materials could stretch up
to and perhaps beyond 100% of their
initial length. Assuming some materials are subjected to at least a 50%
tensile strain in vivo, measuring elastic recovery from tensile strain in vitro
is a relevant test.
The test attempted to simulate a
clinical situation, but several limitations existed. In order to strain the
impression material specimens at a
controlled rate, the specimens were
removed from the 34C water bath
and elongated at room temperature.
The specimens were elongated at a
standard rate of 200 mm/min. Because elastomeric impression materials are viscoelastic, varying the elongation rate might affect the elastic

recovery. The study did not consider

elastic recovery from strains below
50%. Future studies might consider
the permanent deformation of materials at varying elongation rates and
from strains below 50%.

CONCLUSIONS
All materials tested exceeded elongations of 100% in tension prior to
failure, justifying the elongation protocol of this study. Recovery from
compressive strain was only correlated to recovery from tensile strain after
a 100% strain, not a 50% strain. The
Senn (hybrid) and Genie (vinyl polysiloxane) had significantly less recovery
than all other materials after tensile
and compressive strain. Clinically,
these materials may distort while being used to capture dentition with
large undercuts.

REFERENCES
1. Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical
properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone
and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:151-4.
2. Collard EW, Caputo AA, Standlee JP,
Trabert KC. Dynamic stresses encountered
in impression removal. J Prosthet Dent
1973;29:498-506.
3. Sotiriou M, Hobkirk JA. An in vivo investigation of seating and removal forces associated with recording impressions in dentate
patients. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:455-62.
4. Jrgensen KD. A new method of recording
the elastic recovery of dental impression
materials. Scand J Dent Res 1976;84:17582.
5. Sneed WD, Miller R, Olson J. Tear strength
of ten elastomeric impression materials. J
Prosthet Dent 1983;49:511-3.
6. Hondrum SO. Tear and energy properties
of three impression materials. Int J Prostho-

dont 1994;7:517-21.
7. Webber RL, Ryge G. The determination of
tear energy of extensible materials of dental
interest. J Biomed Mater Res 1968;2:28196.
8. Tam LE, Brown JW. The tear resistance
of various impression materials with
and without modifiers. J Prosthet Dent
1990;63:282-5.
9. Salem NS, Combe EC, Watts DC. Mechanical properties of elastomeric impression
materials. J Oral Rehabil 1988;15:125-32.
10.Klooster J, Logan GI, Tjan AH. Effects of
strain rate on the behavior of elastomeric
impression. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:292-8.
11.Chai J, Takahashi Y, Lautenschlager EP.
Clinically relevant mechanical properties
of elastomeric impression materials. Int J
Prosthodont 1998;11:219-23.
12.British Standards Institution. Specification
for dental elastomeric impression materials.
British Standard 4269:1,1965.
13.Blomberg PA, Mahmood S, Smales RJ,
Makinson OF. Comparative elasticity tests
for elastomeric (non putty) impression
materials. Aust Dent J 1992;37:346-52.
14.Mansfield MA, Wilson HJ. A new method
of determining the tension set of elastomeric impression materials. Br Dent J
1973;135:101-5.
15.Jamani KD, Harrington E, Wilson HJ. The
determination of elastic recovery of impression materials at the setting time. J Oral
Rehabil 1989;16:89-100.
16.Collard EW, Caputo AA, Standlee JP,
Trabert KC. Dynamic stresses encountered
in impression removal. J Prosthet Dent
1973;29:498-506.
17.International Organization for Standardization. ISO Specification No. 4823:2000.
Dentistry - Elastomeric impression materials. 3rd ed. 2000.
18.McCabe JF, Wilson HJ. Polymers in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:219-23.
Corresponding author:
Dr John O Burgess
SDB 605
1530 3rd Ave South
Birmingham, AL 35295-0007
Fax: 205-934-2340
E-mail: jburgess@uab.edu
Copyright 2008 by the Editorial Council for
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Availability of Journal Back Issues

As a service to our subscribers, copies of back issues of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry for the preceding 5 years are
maintained and are available for purchase from Elsevier Inc until inventory is depleted. Please write to Elsevier Inc,
Subscription Customer Service, 6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, FL 32887, or call 800-654-2452 or 407-345-4000 for
information on availability of particular issues and prices.

Lawson et al