Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry logoLink to International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry
. 2012 Feb 24;5(1):33–38. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1131

Accuracy of Different Putty-Wash Impression Techniques with Various Spacer Thickness

Anshul Chugh 1,✉, Aman Arora 2, Vijay Pratap Singh 3
PMCID: PMC4093633  PMID: 25206132

ABSTRACT

One of the most important steps is accurate impression making for fabrication of fixed partial denture.

The two different putty-wash techniques that are commonly used are: (1) Putty-wash one-step technique, (2) putty-wash two-step technique.

A uniform wash space is needed for an accurate impression. Nissan et al recommended the use of two-step technique for accurate impression making as there is uniform wash space for the light body material to polymerize.

The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of stone casts obtained from different putty-wash impression techniques using various spacer thickness.

The critical factor that influences the accuracy of putty-wash impression techniques is the controlled wash bulk which is absent in one-step putty-wash impression technique and with polyethylene spacer was used.

How to cite this article: Chugh A, Arora A, Singh VP. Accuracy of Different Putty-Wash Impression Techniques with Various Spacer Thickness. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(1):33-38.

Keywords: Putty-wash techniques, Impression techniques, Wash space, Different spacers thickness, Comparison, Accuracy

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important steps is accurate impression making for fabrication of fixed partial denture. The two different putty-wash techniques that are commonly used are: (1) putty-wash one-step technique, (2) putty-wash two- step technique. A uniform wash space is needed for an accurate impression. Nissan et al recommended the use of two-step technique for accurate impression making as there is uniform wash space for the light body material to polymerize.

Putty acts as a tray for wash material. Light body being less viscous has good flow to record the fine details resulting in an accurate impression. An accurate impression produces the stone casts with minimal dimensional change in regard to the vertical and horizontal dimension between the prepared abutments. Clinical success of fixed prosthodontic procedure is dependent upon the dimensional accuracy of elastomeric impression material and impression procedures.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

  • To compare the accuracy of various impression techniques made with putty-wash impression material.

  • To determine the effect of wash space on the accuracy of impressions made with different techniques.

  • Clinical recommendations based on study and observation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study, putty-wash impression techniques with different spacer thickness of 1 and 2 mm and polyethylene spacer has been used. The two putty-wash impression techniques that have been compared for dimensional accuracy are one-step and two-step procedures.

Materials

  1. Master model, containing three complete crown fixed partial denture abutment preparations.

  2. Six metal copings, three each of 1 and 2 mm thickness.

  3. Polyethylene separating sheets.

  4. Perforated metal tray.

  5. Addition silicone impression material. (Flextime, Heraeus Kulzer) (easy putty and light-bodied polyvinyl siloxane).

  6. Tray adhesive (Heraeus Kulzer, universal adhesive).

  7. Die stone (Kalrock, super hard die stone class IV, Kalabhai Karson, Mumbai).

  8. Debubblizer (Dentofill).

Armamentarium

  1. Vaccum mixer

  2. Automatic mixing syringe and dispensing gun (Heraeus Kulzer)

  3. Vibrator

  4. Rubber bowl

  5. Mixing spatula

  6. Base former

  7. Stopwatch

  8. Coordinate measurement machine (CMM, Llyod, Germany) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Armamentarium used

PREPARATION OF MASTER MODEL

A metal master model, containing three complete crown fixed partial denture abutment preparations, was fabricated for making the measurements. The abutments were prepared with occlusal taper of 6° and two perpendicular cross grooves on the occlusal surface as reference points for taking measurements.

Grouping of Impressions

The impressions were categorized into four groups as follows:

Group I: One-step technique in which putty and wash impression materials were used simultaneously and the casts obtained from them were categorized as group I casts (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Single-step putty-wash impression technique

Group II: Two-step technique in which primary impression with putty was made with 1 mm thick metal copings placed over the abutments. The copings were removed to create a uniform 1 mm wash space. Wash impression material was syringed around the abutments and the primary putty impression was seated to get a complete two-step putty- wash impression. The casts obtained from them were categorized as group II casts (Fig. 3).

Figs 3A and B.

Figs 3A and B

Open in a new tab

Putty-wash with copings as spacer

Group III: Two-step technique in which primary impression with putty was made with 2 mm thick metal copings placed over the abutments. The copings were removed to create a uniform 2 mm wash space. Wash impression material was syringed around the abutments and the primary putty impression was seated to get a complete two-step puttywash impression. The casts obtained from them were categorized as group III casts (Fig. 3).

Group IV: Two-step technique in which a polyethylene spacer was used with putty impression and later the polyethylene spacer was removed to create a wash space. The wash impression material was syringed around the abutments and the putty impression was seated to get a complete two-step putty-wash impression. The casts obtained from them were categorized as group IV casts (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Putty-wash with polyethylene spacer

Measuring Procedure

The measurements of master model and stone casts (Fig. 5) were done using coordinate measurement machine (three-dimensional measurement machine) (Fig. 6) with accuracy up to 0.001 mm. It is mechanical system designed to move a measuring probe to locate reference points on the occlusal and horizontal platform. It consists of four components: The machine itself, measuring probe, the control or computing system and measuring software. The probe used can be either mechanical optical or a laser probe.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Putty-wash with copings as spacer

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Measurement with coordinate measuring machine

OBSERVATION AND RESULTS

The difference between the mean of stone model (msm) and mean of master model (mmm) divided by mean of master model multiplied by 100 was expressed as percentage deviation from master model for each impression technique of each measurement location:

Percentage of deviation = (msm – mmm)/mmm × 100

All the measurements obtained for all four groups were tabulated and statistically analyzed (Tables 1 to 4 and Fig. 7).

Table 1: Measurements of interabutment distances on the master model and stone casts for all four groups in mm

S. no. Master model      Group I      Group II      Group III      Group IV     
1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3     
1 17.771      17.428      17.826      17.49      17.788      17.456      17.807      17.473      17.648      17.336     
2           17.825      17.491      17.789      17.455      17.808      17.464      17.662      17.341     
3           17.828      17.484      17.79      17.464      17.806      17.476      17.645      17.334     
4           17.829      17.486      17.792      17.458      17.817      17.463      17.644      17.328     
5           17.83      17.489      17.791      17.465      17.816      17.472      17.653      17.325     
6           17.823      17.488      17.795      17.459      17.809      17.466      17.646      17.339     
7           17.827      17.49      17.798      17.462      17.794      17.471      17.663      17.324     
8           17.833      17.487      17.793      17.463      17.805      17.473      17.643      17.332     
9           17.824      17.489      17.797      17.457      17.802      17.466      17.665      17.326     
10           17.834      17.491      17.787      17.46      17.804      17.473      17.651      17.338     
Open in a new tab

Table 4: Mean values, standard deviation, deviation of intra-abutment distances from master model of all the groups

Intra-abutment distance                     Master model      Group I      Group II      Group III      Group IV     
     1      2      3      1      2      3      1      2      3             1      2             3             1      2      3     
Mean (mm)         8.053      8.011      7.817      7.753      7.671      7.555      8.029      7.983 7.87        8.019 7.8     7.78        7.793      7.777      7.685           
Standard deviation -0.004 -0.005 -0.004 -0.004 -0.003 -0.003 -0.004 -0.004 -0.004 -0.083 -0.007 -0.007            
Deviation from master -0.300 -0.340 -0.262 -0.024 -0.028 -0.030 -0.034 -0.037 -0.037 -0.260 -0.234 -0.132            
model (mm)     
Deviation from master  -300  -340  -262     -24     -28     -30    -34     -37     -37   -260   -234    -132
model (μm)     
Percent of deviation -3.725 -4.244 -3.352 -0.298 -0.35   -0.384 -0.422 -0.473 -0.473 -3.229 -2.921 -1.689           
Open in a new tab

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

The various distances measured were intra-abutment (vertical) and interabutment (horizontal)

DISCUSSION

  • The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of stone casts obtained from different putty/wash impression techniques using various spacer thickness (Graphs 1 to 4).

  • The critical factor that influences the accuracy of putty- wash impression techniques is the controlled wash bulk which is absent in one-step putty-wash impression technique and with polyethylene spacer was used.

  • The above results showed that when stone casts and master model were compared, the vertical distance (intra- abutment) of the stone dies decreased, whereas horizontal distance (interabutment) increased.

  • In the present study, the controlled wash space is essential for accuracy of putty-wash impressions. The controlled wash space was provided by uniform spacer thickness of 1 and 2 mm. The uncontrolled wash bulk was seen in one-step impression technique and two-step impression technique with polyethylene spacer.

  • The results of present study do not agree with Hung et al and Idris et al. Hung et al and Idris et al investigated the importance of impression techniques and reported that impression accuracy is not technique dependent.

  • Based on the observation of the present study, two-step putty-wash technique with 1 and 2 mm spacer thickness is more acceptable and viable alternative to obtain accurate impressions.

  • The clinical implication of the present study is that to achieve a controlled wash bulk, temporary crowns can be used to create the desired wash space in the putty impression.

  • Further investigation is needed to determine the exact amount and technique of achieving wash space that is essential for accuracy in using two-step putty/wash impression techniques in conjunction with polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Study can also be undertaken for dimensional accuracies in long-span bridges.

Graph 1.

Graph 1

Open in a new tab

Mean of interabutment distances

Graph 4.

Graph 4

Open in a new tab

Mean difference of intra-abutment distances (1, 2 and 3) between casts and master model

Table 2: Measurements of intra-abutment distances on the master model and stone casts for all the four groups in mm

S. no. Master model      Group I      Group II      Group III      Group IV     
1      2      3      1      2      3      1      2      3      1      2      3      1      2      3     
1 8.053      8.011      7.817      7.753      7.673      7.551      8.032      7.983      7.788      8.022      7.982      7.776      7.796      7.786      7.685     
2                7.758      7.676      7.55      8.03      7.986      7.785      8.024      7.983      7.78      7.793      7.782      7.689     
3                7.748      7.671      7.548      8.026      7.98      7.79      8.02      7.98      7.779      7.79      7.781      7.69     
4                7.751      7.68      7.56      8.029      7.985      7.783      8.019      7.979      7.783      7.786      7.775      7.695     
5                7.752      7.666      7.562      8.033      7.981      7.784      8.025      7.977      7.777      7.8      7.77      7.678     
6                7.756      7.668      7.555      8.027      7.984      7.786      8.017      7.98      7.781      7.806      7.771      7.676     
7                7.76      7.664      7.559      8.025      7.982      7.792      8.014      7.975      7.784      7.78      7.772      7.692     
8                7.752      7.669      7.558      8.031      7.979      7.787      8.018      7.971      7.771      7.799      7.77      7.677     
9                7.747      7.675      7.554      8.034      7.987      7.784      8.011      7.982      7.779      7.791      7.789      7.681     
10                7.755      7.672      7.553      8.024      7.983      7.789      8.019      7.984      7.786      7.789      7.776      7.683     
Open in a new tab

Table 3: Mean values, standard deviation, deviation of interabutment distances from master model of all the groups

Interabutment distance                                 Master model      Group 1      Group II      Group III      Group IV    
     1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3      1-2      2-3    
Mean (mm)                             17.771      17.428      17.83      17.49      17.79      17.46      17.81      17.47      17.65      17.33    
Standard deviation             0.004        0.002        0.004        0.0035        0.007        0.005        0.008        0.006    
Deviation from master model (mm)       0.057        0.060        0.021        0.032        0.036        0.042      -0.119      -0.096    
Deviation from master model (μm)     57      60      21      32      36      42     -119      -96
Percent of deviation        0.321        0.344        0.118      0.184           0.203        0.241      -0.670      -0.551    
Open in a new tab

Graph 2.

Graph 2

Open in a new tab

Mean of intra-abutment distances (1, 2 and 3)

Graph 3.

Graph 3

Open in a new tab

Mean difference of interabutment distances (1-2 and 2-3) between casts and master model

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

  1. A two-step technique with uniform and controlled wash space is recommended for the fabrication of stone dies which will result in precise fitting of the restoration.

  2. The two-step putty-wash technique with 1/2 mm spacer thickness produced casts within accepted clinical range. The one-step and two-step with polyethylene spacer produced the most uneven dimensional changes.

  3. The clinical implication of this study will be to use temporary crowns to create controlled wash space.

Footnotes

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None declared

Contributor Information

Anshul Chugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology Government Dental College, Uh-7, Medical Campus, Rohtak, Haryana India, e-mail: dr.anshulchugh@rediffmail.com.

Aman Arora, Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics, DAV Dental College, Yamunanagar, Haryana, India.

Vijay Pratap Singh, Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, DAV Dental College Yamunanagar, Haryana, India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • 1. Amorrortu PJ, Brown D. The relative dimensional stability addition cuffed silicone and other elastomeric impression natural. J Dent Res. 1979;1272;58 [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Beaumont AJ. Proper loading of impression tray minimizes inaccuracies. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(1):108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Brown D. An update on elastomeric impression materials. Br Dent J. 1981;150(2):35–40. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4804535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Chai J, Takahashi Y, Lautenschlager EP. Clinically relevant mechanical properties of elastomeric impression. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(3):219–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Chee WW, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: A review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(5):728–732. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90192-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Chong YH, Soh G. Effectiveness of intraoral delivery tips in reducing voids in elastomeric impressions. Quintessence Int. 1991;22(11):897–900. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ciesco JN, Malone WF, Sandrik JL, Mazur B. Comparison of elastomeric impression materials used is fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45(1):89–94. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90018-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Craig RG, Urguida NJ, Lui CC. Compares on of commercial elastomeric impression materials used is fixed prosthodontics. Oper Dent. 1990;15(3):94–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Cullen DR, Sandrik JL. Tensile strength of elastomeric impression materials, adhesive and cohesive bonding. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;62(2):142–145. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90300-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Dounis GS, Ziebert GJ, Dounis KS. A comparison of impression materials for complete arch fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(2):165–168. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90157-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Drummond JL, Randolph RG. Comparative study of elastic impression material. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56(2):188–192. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90469-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Eames WB, Wallace SW, Suway NB, Rogers LB. Accuracy and dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;42(2):159–162. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90166-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Eames WB, Sieweke JC, Wallace SW, Rogers LB. Elastomeric impression material: Effect of bulk on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;41(3):304–307. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90013-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Gilmore WH, Schnell RJ, Phillips RW. Factors influencing the accuracy of silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1959;9(2):304–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Gordon GE, Johnson GH, Drennon DG. The effect and tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63(1):12–15. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90257-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Hung S, Purk JH, Tira DE, Eick JD. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty-mash addition silicon impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1942;67(5):583–589. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90151-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Idris B et al. Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of one and two-step technique with the use of putty-wash addition silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74(5):535–41. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80358-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;53(4):484–490. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90630-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Johnson GH, Lepe X, Aw TC. The effect of moisture on detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(4):354–364. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00429-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Lacy M, Fukui H, Bellman T, Jendresen MD. Time dependent accuracy of elastomer impression materials (part II). Polyether, polysulphides and polyvinyl siloxane. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;45:329–333. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90400-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Laufer BZ, Baharav H, Ganor Y, Cardash HS. The effect of marginal thickness on the distortion of different impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(5):466–471. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90002-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Marcinak CF, Draughn RA. Linear dimensional changes in addition curing silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;47(4):411–413. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(82)80092-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Marshak B, Assif D, Pilo R. A controlled putty-wash impression technique. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64(6):635–638. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90285-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Millar BJ, Dunne SM, Robinson PB. In vitro study of the number of surface defects in monophase and two-phase addition silicone impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80(1):32–35. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70088-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Naylor WP, Beatty MW. Materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 1992;36(3):665–692. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Nissan J, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(2):161–165. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)80007-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Panichuttra R, Jones RM, Goodacre C, Munoz CA, Moore BK. Hydrophilic poly (vinyl siloxane) impression materials: Dimensional accuracy, wettability and effect on gypsum hardness. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4(3):240–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Petersen GF, Asmusssen E. Distortion of impression materials used in the double-mix technique. Scand J Dent Res. 1991;99(4):343–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1991.tb01039.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Purk JH, Willes MG, Tira DE, Eick JD, Hung SH. The effect of different storage conditions on polyether and polyvinylsiloxane impression. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129(7):1014–1021. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ragain et al. Detail reproduction, contact angels and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die materials combinations. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13(3):214–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Reisbick MH. Effect of viscosity on the accuracy and stability of elastic impression materials. J Dent Res. 1973;52(3):407–417. doi: 10.1177/00220345730520030201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Reitz CD, Clark NP. The setting of vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone putties when mixed with gloved hands. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988;116(3):371–374. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Reports of councils and Bureaus. Revised American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aqueous, elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94:733–41. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1977.0334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Robinson PB, Dunne SM, Millar BJ. An in vitro study of a surface wetting agent for addition reaction silicone impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(4):390–393. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90101-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Sandrik JL, Vacco JL. Tensile and bond strength of putty wash elastomeric impression material. J Prosthet dent. 1983;50(3):358–360. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(83)80092-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Smith GM, Taylor WG. Effect of impression tray design and impression technique upon the accuracy of stone casts produced from a putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane impression material. J Dent. 1991;19(5):283–289. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(91)90072-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Schelb E, Mazzocco CV, Jones JD, Prihoda T. Compatibility of type IV dental stone with polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58(1):19–22. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(87)80136-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Soh G, Chong YH. Defects in automixed addition silicone elastomers prepared by putty wash impression technique. J Oral Rehabilitation. 1991;18:547–552. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1991.tb00077.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Stackhouse JA. A comparison of elastic impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1975;34(3):305–313. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(75)90108-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Takahashi H, Finger WJ. Effects of the setting stage on the accuracy of double mix impression made with addition curing silicone. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72(1):78–84. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90215-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Tjan AH, Whang SB, Tjan AH, Sarkissian R. Clinically oriented evaluation of the accuracy of commonly used impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;56(1):4–8. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90272-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Williams PT, Jackson DG, Bergman W. An evaluation of the time dependent dimensional stability of eleven elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52(1):120–125. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(84)90194-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry are provided here courtesy of Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing (P) Ltd.

RESOURCES