Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy of Casts Generated From Multiple Mix Impression Technique, Matrix Impression System and Dual Arch Impression Technique - An In Vitro Study


  • S.G.T Dental College, Department of Prosthodontics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
  • S.G.T Dental College, Department of Orthodontics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
  • D.A.V Dental College, Department of Prosthodontics, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India


For a successful fixed partial prosthodontics, obtaining an accurate impression for making an accurate cast is of prime importance. In the present study the three fixed prosthodontic impression procedures, multiple mix impression technique, matrix impression system and dual arch impression technique; have been compared in terms of dimensional accuracy. An articulated acrylic resin typodont prepared with reference points was used as a master model. Addition silicon impression materials in various consistencies were used for making impressions. The coordinate measurement machine (Lloyd, Germany) was used for three dimensional measurement of master model and stone casts with an accuracy of 0.0001 mm. As per statistical analysis, all the impressions had a tendency to be over sized in horizontal dimensions and undersized in vertical dimensions. Dual arch impression technique used with flexible disposable plastic tray has found to be less dimensional accurate as compared to multiple mix impression technique and matrix impression system whereas the other two techniques were comparable to each other.


Triple Tray, Putty Matrix, Addition Silicones

Subject Discipline


Full Text:


Fusayama, et al. Accuracy of the laminated single impression technique with silicone materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1974;32(3): 270e273.

Shillinburg H, Hobo S, et al. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthdontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence. 2008:281e307.

Bass EV, Kafalias MC. Dual arch impressions. Aust Dent J. 1992;37:1e5.

Craig RG. Restorative Dental Materials. 10th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1985:276.

Chee WWL, Donovan TE. Polyvinyl siloxane impression material: a review of properties and techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:728e732.

Nissan J, Laufer B, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxanes impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:161.

Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of addition silicones as a function of techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55(2):197e202.

Wassell RW, Ibbetson RJ. The accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions made with standard and reinforced stock trays. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;65(6):748e757.

Marcinak CF, Young A, Draughn RD, Flemming WR. Linear dimensional changes in elastic impression materials. J Dent Res. 1980;59:1152e1155.

Livaditis GJ. Comparison of new matrix system with traditional fixed prosthodontic impression procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79(2):200e207.

Livaditis GJ. The matrix impression system for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:208e216.

Browning GC, Bromme JC, Murchinson DF. Removal of latex gloves prior to taking polyvinyl siloxanes impressions. Quintessence Int. 1994;25:787e790.

Parker Merle H. Comparison of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation for two impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:225e259.

Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughs HJ. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double arch and complete arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:510e515.

Ceyhan JA, Jhonson GH, Lepe X. A clinical study comparing the three dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual arch trays and a complete arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:228e234.


  • There are currently no refbacks.