Dental Materials Journal 2015; 34(1): 48–53

Dimensional changes in stone models simulating full crown preparations with

adjacent teeth resulting from long-term immersion of medium-viscosity addition-
type silicone rubber impressions in disinfectant solutions
Hisako HIRAGUCHI1,2, Yukiko IWASAKI1, Eriko IWASAKI1, Hisaji KIKUCHI1,2, Hideharu HIROSE1,2
and Takayuki YONEYAMA1,2

1
Department of Dental Materials, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8310, Japan
2
Division of Biomaterials Science, Dental Research Center, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-
8310, Japan
Corresponding author, Hisako HIRAGUCHI; E-mail: hiraguchi.hisako@nihon-u.ac.jp

If impression materials could be immersed in disinfectant solutions for a longer period, then this form of disinfection would be
easier to incorporate into dental preparation procedures. This study investigated the dimensional changes in stone models resulting
from immersion of medium-viscosity hydrophilic addition-type silicone rubber impression material in disinfectant solutions for 30
min and 24 h. Impressions of a master die designed to simulate a full crown preparation with adjacent teeth were immersed in 2%
glutaraldehyde and 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde solutions. The dimensional changes in the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions
in the stone models were then measured using a three-dimensional coordinate system. It was found that the dimensional changes in
the stone models caused by immersion of the impression materials were less than 15 μm. Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde or 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde for 24 h was as clinically acceptable for medium-viscosity hydrophilic addition-type silicone rubber impressions
as immersion for 30 min.

Keywords: Addition-type silicone rubber impression materials, Disinfection, Dimensional change

of immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde solution varied

INTRODUCTION
Although immersion disinfection of impression materials
is required in order to prevent the transmission of
infectious diseases1-4), it is difficult to adhere to the
recommended disinfection period in dental practice.
If impression materials could be immersed for a
longer period, for example overnight, then this form
of disinfection would become easier to apply. Some
studies5-8) have reported the effects of long-term
immersion of impression materials in disinfectant
solutions on the dimensional accuracy of the resulting
stone models. However, no studies have investigated the
effects of long-term immersion of addition-type silicone
rubber impression materials in ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution, which has become attention for the toxicity
of glutaraldehyde solution. Accordingly there is a need
to examine the effects of such treatment on impression
materials in more detail.
During long-term immersion of hydrophilic addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials in disinfectant
solutions, imbibition may cause dimensional changes
in the impressions4), thus reducing the dimensional
accuracy of the resulting stone models. A previous study8)
has reported that immersion of low-viscosity hydrophilic
addition-type silicone rubber impression materials in
2% glutaraldehyde or 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 24 h caused a significant decrease in the
dimensions of stone models8).
On the other hand, a previous study has shown
that the degree of imbibition of hydrophilic addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials after 18 h
according to the brand7). Therefore it was suggested
that long-term immersion might be clinically acceptable
providing suitable impression materials were selected.
The polymerization shrinkage of medium-viscosity
addition-type silicone rubber impression materials
is less than that of low-viscosity materials9). It was
reported that, when the proportion of filler in addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials increased,
accuracy of impression materials increased10). The
imbibition of medium-viscosity hydrophilic impression
materials in disinfectant solutions might therefore be
smaller than that of low-viscosity materials. Accordingly,
the present study investigated the dimensional changes
in stone models resulting from long-term immersion of
three brands of medium-viscosity hydrophilic addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials in 2%
glutaraldehyde and 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials listed in Table 1 were used in accordance
with the instructions of the respective manufacturers.
Three brands of type 2 hydrophilic addition-type
silicone rubber impression materials (ASU: Aquasil
Ultra, FUS: Fusion II, IP3: Imprint 3) and type 4 dental
stone (New Fujirock) were used. Adhesives made by
the respective manufacturers were used for fixing the
impression materials to the metal impression trays.
An automatic mixer (Super Rakuneru, GC, Tokyo,
Japan) was used to mix the dental stone. Disinfectants

Received Jun 24, 2014: Accepted Aug 26, 2014

doi:10.4012/dmj.2014-186 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2014-186
 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 48–53
Table 1 Materials used in this study
Materials Code Brand name Type
Addition silicone ASU Aquasil Ultra
Addition silicone FUS Fusion II
Addition silicone IP3 Imprint 3
Dental stone — New Fujirock
Glutaraldehyde GA Denthyde
Ortho-phthalaldehyde PA Disopa
used were 2% glutaraldehyde solution (GA) and 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution (PA). Two brands of
disinfectant product were used as test materials:
Denthyde (20% glutaraldehyde) and Disopa (0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde). The glutaraldehyde was diluted
with deionized water to a concentration of 2%.
Fabrication of stone models
Figure 1 shows an epoxy resin master die simulating a
full crown preparation with adjacent teeth and a
perforated metal tray adjusted to an impression
thickness of 5 mm. Diagrams depicting the setup of the
master die and stand, including the tray, are shown
in Figs. 2 and 3. Three-dimensional coordinates were
marked on the stand so that they were shared by both
the master die and the stone model11,12).
The stone model was prepared by seating the tray
overfilled with mixed hydrophilic addition-type silicone
rubber impression material on the master die, which was
overlaid with the impression material, and the tray was
then immediately secured to the stand using two sets of
screws. The mixed impression materials were extruded
through the static mixing tip fitted to the cartridge
materials. At 15 min13) after the start of silicone rubber
mixing, this assembly was inverted, and the screws
securing the stand to the master die were removed. At 17
min after the start of silicone rubber mixing, the master
die was removed in an upward direction using a pullout
handle attached to a screw at a crosshead speed of 500
mm/min using a universal testing instrument (Model
5567, Instron, Canton, MA, USA).
Each impression was rinsed for 30 s under tap
water. After rinsing, the impressions were assigned to
three groups. The first (control) group was stored in air
at room temperature (23±1°C) for 24 h (C24). The second
group was immersed in 2% glutaraldehyde solution for
30 min (GA0.5) or 24 h (GA24). The third group was
immersed in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for
30 min (PA0.5) or 24 h (PA24). After these four modes
of immersion disinfection, the impressions were rinsed
again for 30 s under tap water to remove any traces of
the disinfectant solution.
Mixed stone was poured onto the surface of the
impression under vibration, and then allowed to set
at room temperature. Two sets of specimens prepared
49
Manufacturer Lot No.
2 Dentsply Cauk, Milford, MA, USA 110823
2 GC, Tokyo, Japan 1110131
2 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany 308055
4 GC, Tokyo, Japan 1006161
— Nippon Shika Yakuhin, Shimonoseki, Japan X5G
— Johnson & Johnson, Tokyo, Japan 295JK
Fig. 1 Master die with stand (left) and perforated tray
(right).
by 30-min immersion disinfection were stored in air at
room temperature for 23 h and 30 min before pouring
the stone. One hour after stone mixing, the stone model
was removed from the impression and stored at room
temperature for 24 h prior to acquisition of three-
dimensional measurements. Five stone models were
prepared for each condition. The temperature of the
water used was 23±1°C.
Measurement procedure
Measurements were made using a three-dimensional
coordinate measuring system (XYZAX GC400D, Tokyo
Seimitsu, Tokyo, Japan) as reported previously11,12). As
shown in Fig. 3, the coordinates were positioned on the
stand. The profiles of the X-Y sections (Z=12.5, 15.0, and
17.5 mm), Y-Z sections (X=40.0 mm), and X-Z sections
(Y=20.0 mm) of the master die and stone models were
measured at a pitch of 0.5 mm using a touch-trigger
electron probe fitted with a 1.0-mm feeler ball. Cubic
curve interpolation was performed on the data of the
master die, and nominal values at 0.5-mm intervals were
obtained. The distances between the nominal values of
the master die and the profile determined by cubic curve
interpolation of the stone model’s measurement data
were calculated.
The dimensional changes in the mesiodistal
dimension in the stone models at the lower position
(Z=12.5 mm) were calculated as follows: 1. At two
intersections of the X-Z section (Y=20.0 mm) and the
50 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 48–53
Fig. 2 Diagram depicting the setup of the master die and
stand, including the perforated tray (units: mm).
A: Master die; B: Stand; C: Perforated tray; D:
Screw used to secure the tray on the stand; E: Tray
guide; F: Screw used to secure the master die to
the stand; G: Screw of the pullout handle used to
remove the master die.
X-Y section (Z=12.5 mm), three distances between three
nominal values of the master die on the X-Z section near
Z=12.5 mm and the measured profile of the stone models
were calculated. 2. At two intersections, three distances
between three nominal values of the master die on the
X-Y section near Y=20.0 mm and the measured profile
of the stone models were calculated. 3. The mean values
of these six distances (1 and 2) at each intersection were
calculated, respectively. 4. The sum of the two mean
values was defined as the dimensional change in the
mesiodistal dimension in the stone models at the lower
position (Z=12.5 mm).
As the same manner, the sum of the two mean values
at two intersections of the Y-Z section (X=40.0 mm) and
the X-Y section (Z=12.5 mm) was also defined as the
dimensional change in the buccolingual dimension in
the stone models at the lower position (Z=12.5 mm). The
dimensional changes in the mesiodistal and buccolingual
dimensions in the stone models at other positions (Z=15.0
and 17.5 mm) were similarly calculated.
With regard to dimensional change, a positive (+)
sign indicated displacement toward the tray, whereas
the opposite direction was given a negative (−) sign.
Dimensional change data were subjected to Tukey’s
Fig. 3 Measurement positions on the master die and
stone model.
multiple comparison test (α=0.05) for statistical
comparison among the conditions. The entire experiment
was conducted at a room temperature of 23±1°C and a
relative humidity of 50±10%.
RESULTS
The dimensional changes in the mesiodistal and
buccolingual dimensions in stone models obtained using
ASU, FUS and IP3 are shown in Figs. 4–9, respectively.
For ASU, FUS, and IP3 impressions, there were
no significant differences in the dimensional changes
in the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions among
the stone models obtained from impressions subjected
to immersion disinfection for 30 min (GA0.5, PA0.5) and
storage in air for 24 h (C24) at any of the measurement
positions.
For ASU impressions, dimensional changes in the
mesiodistal dimension in the stone models showed
no significant differences between the impressions
immersed in glutaraldehyde solution for 24 h (GA24)
and stored in air for 24 h (C24) at all positions, while
dimensional changes in the stone models obtained
from impressions immersed in ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 24 h (PA24) were significantly smaller
than those for C24, except at Z=17.5 mm. There were
no significant differences between PA24 and C24 in the
dimensional changes in the buccolingual dimension at
all positions, while the dimensional changes for GA24
were significantly larger than those for C24, except at
Z=12.5 mm.
For FUS impressions, dimensional changes in
the mesiodistal dimension for GA24 and PA24 were
significantly smaller than those for C24, except for GA24
 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 48–53
at Z=15.0 mm. There were no significant differences
among GA24, PA24 and C24 in dimensional changes in
the buccolingual dimension at all positions.
For IP3 impressions, dimensional changes in the
mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions for GA24 and
PA24 were significantly smaller than those for C24 at
all measurement positions.
The differences in dimensional changes between the
Fig. 4 Dimensional changes in the mesiodistal dimension
in stone models (ASU).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
Fig. 6 Dimensional changes in the mesiodistal dimension
in stone models (FUS).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
51
control and the other conditions were less than 15 μm at
all measurement positions.
DISCUSSION
For immersion disinfection of addition-type silicone
rubber impression materials, it is recommended that
the exposure time does not exceed 30 min4). It has been
Fig. 5 Dimensional changes in the buccolingual dimension
in stone models (ASU).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
Fig. 7 Dimensional changes in the buccolingual dimension
in stone models (FUS).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
52 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 48–53
Fig. 8 Dimensional changes in the mesiodistal dimension
in stone models (IP3).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
reported that there are no differences in the dimensional
changes in stone models after immersion of addition-type
silicone rubber impression materials in glutaraldehyde
solution for less than 30 min in comparison with no
immersion13-15). A previous study8) investigating the
effects of 30-min immersion disinfection of four brands
of low-viscosity hydrophilic addition-type silicone rubber
impression materials, including those with enhanced
hydrophilicity, on the dimensional accuracy of the
resulting stone models found no difference between the
use of 2% glutaraldehyde solution and 0.55% ortho-
phthalaldehyde solution. In the present study, for
medium-viscosity impression materials, there were no
significant differences in the dimensional changes in
the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions among
stone models obtained from impressions subjected to
immersion disinfection for 30 min (GA0.5, PA0.5) and no
disinfection (C24) at any of the measurement positions.
These results indicated that immersion in 0.55% ortho-
phthalaldehyde solution for 30 min was as clinically
feasible for disinfection of hydrophilic addition-type
silicone rubber impression materials as immersion in
2% glutaraldehyde solution.
On the other hand, long-term immersion of
hydrophilic addition-type silicone rubber impression
materials in disinfectant solutions may promote water
absorption from the surrounding milieu4), and therefore
long-term immersion may affect the dimensional
changes occurring in the resulting stone models. It has
been reported that the accuracy of hydrophilic addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials is adversely
affected by 18-h immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde
solution, and shows decreases in the mesiodistal and
buccolingual dimensions5). A previous study8) has also
Fig. 9 Dimensional changes in the buccolingual dimension
in stone models (IP3).
The corresponding small letters indicate no
significant difference at p>0.05.
C24: Control; storage for 24 h in air; GA0.5:
Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min;
GA24: Immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde for 24 h;
PA0.5: Immersion in 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde
solution for 30 min; PA24: Immersion in 0.55%
ortho-phthalaldehyde solution for 24 h
reported that 24-h immersion of low-viscosity addition-
type silicone rubber impression materials in disinfectant
solutions caused a significant decrease in the dimensions
of the resulting stone models. However, the effects varied
according to the brand of impression material and the
disinfectant solution employed5-8). Therefore, detailed
investigation of the effects of long-term immersion of
hydrophilic addition-type silicone rubber impression
materials might help to devise methods of long-term
disinfection that are clinically acceptable.
For medium-viscosity ASU impressions, dimensional
changes in the mesiodistal dimension showed no
significant differences between GA24 and C24 at
all positions, whereas the changes for PA24 were
significantly less than those for C24. With regard to
dimensional changes in the buccolingual dimension,
there were no significant differences between PA24
and C24 at any of the measured positions, although
the dimensional changes for GA24 were significant
larger than those for C24. When an impression is firmly
attached to the tray, the stone model displaces towards
the tray due to setting expansion of the stone models
and polymerization shrinkage of the impression16).
On the other hand, when the stone model displaces in
the opposite direction from the tray, expansion of the
impression due imbibition may have occurred. The
significant decreases in the mesiodistal dimension for
PA24 might have been due to imbibition after long-
term immersion. In contrast, the significant increase
in the buccolingual dimension for GA24 might have
resulted from shrinkage of the impression. Shrinkage of
medium-viscosity ASU impressions has been reported to
increase over a period of two weeks17). It is thought that
glutaraldehyde solution accelerates the polymerization
 Dent Mater J 2015; 34(1): 48–53
shrinkage of medium-viscosity ASU impressions.
In addition, leach out of component in impression
materials might be occurred4).Significant decreases in
the mesiodistal dimension in FUS impressions, and
in the mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions in
IP3 impressions, were observed in comparison with
C24. These dimensional decreases in the stone models
might have been caused by imbibition due to long-
term immersion. However, dimensional changes in the
buccolingual dimension in FUS impressions were not
affected by long-term immersion. Since the impression
material was not fixed to the metal impression tray
in the mesiodistal dimension, it was anticipated that
expansion of the impression in that dimension due to
water absorption would have been greater than that in
the buccolingual dimension18). Therefore, the mesiodistal
dimension in FUS may have shown a significant
decrease. In addition, the effect of long-term immersion
on FUS seemed to be less than that on IP3.
These results indicated that the effects of long-term
immersion of medium-viscosity hydrophilic addition-type
silicone rubber impression materials on the dimensional
accuracy of the resulting stone models varied with the
type of disinfectant and the brand of the material.
In this study, the differences in dimensional changes
between the control and the other conditions were less
than 15 μm. This value corresponds to a dimensional
change of approximately 0.16% in the stone models. For
low-viscosity addition-type silicone rubber impression
materials, the differences in the dimensional changes
in stone models between long-term immersion and no
immersion have been reported to be 0.2–0.8%8). Thus
it appears that the effects of long-term immersion
of medium-viscosity addition-type silicone rubber
impression materials are smaller than those for low-
viscosity materials, and are thought to be clinically
acceptable19,20).
CONCLUSION
It is possible to immerse medium-viscosity hydrophilic
addition-type silicone rubber impression materials in 2%
glutaraldehyde or 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde solution
for 24 h without adversely affecting the dimensional
accuracy of the resulting stone models.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported in part by grants from the
Dental Research Center and the Sato Fund, Nihon
University School of Dentistry.
REFERENCES
1) Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment,
Council on Dental Practice, Council on Dental Therapeutics.
Infection control recommendations for the dental office and
the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116: 241-248.
2) Kotsiomiti E, Tzialla A, Hatjivasiliou K. Accuracy and stability
of impression materials subjected to chemical disinfection —
53
a literature review. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35: 291-299.
3) Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee. (HICPAC). Guideline for disinfection
and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. Atlanta:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2008. p.
20-21, 88-89, 104-105.
4) Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. In: Anusavice KJ, Shen C,
Rawls HR editor. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th
ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013. p. 165-167.
5) Lepe X, Johnson GH. Accuracy of polyether and addition
silicone after long-term immersion disinfection. J Prosthet
Dent 1997; 78: 245-249.
6) Hiraguchi H, Uchida H, Nakagawa H, Tanabe N, Habu H.
Effects of immersion disinfection of vinyl silicone rubber
impressions on reproducibility of stone models. J J Dent
Mater 1999; 18: 8-14.
7) Lepe X, Johnson GH, Berg JC, Aw TC. Wettability, imbibition,
and mass change of disinfected low-viscosity impression
materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88: 268-276.
8) Hiraguchi H, Kaketani M, Hirose H, Kikuchi H, Yoneyama
T. Dimensional changes in stone casts resulting from long-
term immersion of addition-type silicone rubber impressions
in disinfectant solutions. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 361-366.
9) Habu H, Uchida H, Hashimoto K, Masaki H. Dimensional
stability of non-aqueous elastomeric impression materials
Part 1. The measurement of polymerization and thermal
contraction of commercially available products by non-
pressure method. J J Dent Mater 1987; 6: 1-8.
10) Chen SY, Liang WM, Chen FN. Factors affectiong the
accuracy of elastomeric impression materials. J Dent 2004;
32: 603-609.
11) Hiraguchi H, Kaketani M, Hirose H, Yoneyama T. The
influence of storing alginate impressions sprayed with
disinfectant on dimensional accuracy and deformation of
maxillary edentulous stone models. Dent Mater J 2010; 29:
309-315.
12) Hiraguchi H, Kaketani M, Hirose H, Yoneyama T. Effect
of immersion disinfection alginate impressions in sodium
hypochlorite solution on the dimensional changes of stone
models. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 280-286.
13) Wadhwani CPK, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Raigrodski AJ.
Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93: 530-539.
14) Johnson GH, Chellis KD, Gordon GE, Lepe X. Dimensional
stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid
and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion. J
Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 446-453.
15) Adabo GL, Zanarotti E, Fonseca RG, Cruz CAS. Effect of
disinfectant agents on dimensional stability of elastomeric
impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 621-624.
16) Ogura H, Takahashi H, Miyazaki T, Oda Y, Unemoto K,
Kozono Y. Essentials of dental materials science. 1st ed.
Tokyo: Ishiyaku Publishers Inc; 2008. p.42.
17) Walker MP, Rondeau M, Petrie C, Tasca A, Williams K.
Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of
current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection.
J Prosthodont 2007; 16: 343-351.
18) Sekiguchi E. Study on the dimensional stability of alginate
impression materials —Effects of impression thickness,
impression diameter and retentive condition with a tray—. J
J Dent Mater 1988; 7: 861-874.
19) Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Buchler A, Lauer HC, Hoffmann L. In
Vitro study on the dimensional accuracy of selected materials
for monophase elastic impression making. Int J Prosthodont
2002; 15: 168-174.
20) Stober T, Johnson GH, Schmitter M. Accuracy of the newly
formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression
material. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 228-239.