Impregum™ Penta™ Polyether Impression Materials feature high level accuracy of detail & dimensional stability.¹ The most important feature is the reliability of the impression - even under difficult clinical conditions - and the high precision fit of the finished work².
Dr. Priti Thanasi, from Broughton Dental Practice, Leicestershire, reported that Impregum Polyether Impression Material is “very good – it’s a reliable and accurate material. I would never use anything else!” – In fact, Priti was so convinced by the benefits of Impregum that she admitted that she hasn’t wanted to try an alternative material!
¹Jacob, S; Nandini, V; Nayar, S. (2012). Comparison of The Dimensional Accuracy And Surface Detail Reproduction Of Different Impression Materials Under Dry And Moist Conditions - An In Vitro Study. International Journal of Contemporary Dentistry. 3 (2), P47-55.
²Barker, W; Walls, AWG; Wassel, RW. (2002). Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: Impression materials and technique. British Dental Journal. 192 (12), p679-690.
Excellent detail reproduction due to high level of hydrophilicity.²
Impregum's high level of hydrophilicity² displaces moisture right from the first contact with tissue ensuring uncompromised marginal accuracy and integrity. From the time it is mixed until it sets, moisture in the mouth does not interfere with achieving accurate, void-free impressions.³ This results in great detail reproduction in a wet environment, which is why recent market data suggests most UK dentists prefer Impregum impression material over Vinyl Polysiloxane.&sup4;
Less stress due to unique ‘snap-set behaviour’.
Its snap-set behaviour ensures that it will not start setting before the working time ends; when it does, though, it does so immediately. Hence, the indicated working time can actually be used to full capacity.
Impregum™ Penta™ Soft Polyether Impression Materials have been developed especially for the monophase technique but additional materials are also available for the heavy body/light body technique
¹SDM analysis 2012. Category: Polyether impression material
²Mondon and Ziegler. (2003). Changes in water contact angles during the first phase of setting of dental impresion materials. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 16 (1), p49-53.
³Michalakis, K; Bakopoulou, A; Hirayama, H; Garefis, D and Garefis, P. (2007). Pre- and Post-set Hydrophilicity of Elastomeric Impression Materials. Journal of Prosthodontics. 16 (4), p.238-248
**SDM analysis 2012. Q1-Q3 2012 Polyether and A-Silicone categories
5 Barker, W; Walls, AWG; Wassel, RW. (2002). Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: Impression materials and technique. British Dental Journal. 192 (12), p679-690.
This investigation evaluated and compared the dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two VPS (Aquasil Monophase, Dentsply and Genie™ Ultra Hydrophilic, Sultan Chemists Inc.) and two 3M ESPE polyether impression materials (Impregum™ Penta™ Soft and Permadyne™ Garant™ 2:1).
Results: Although moisture may not adversely affect the dimensional accuracy of either polyether or hydrophilic VPS material, the evidence suggests that polyether material is more likely to produce impressions with superior detail reproduction in the presence of moisture.
Authors: M.P. Walker, C.S. Petrie, R. Haj-Ali, P. Spencer, C. Dumas and K. Williams, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA Reference: J Prosth. 14. 3 (2005): 158 – 163.
Aim of the study: The study investigates the hydrophilic and flow behaviour of impression materials.
Results: Impregum™ Polyether Impression Material (3M ESPE) is most hydrophilic and most flowable compared to the VPS materials investigated. An extensive clinical case with 8 single-unit Lava™ Crowns illustrates the high clinical relevance of Impregum’s excellent flow properties and hydrophilicity. The precision impression with Impregum™ Penta™ Soft Quick Material has earned the appreciation of the dental technician for its detailed accuracy.
Authors: R. D. Perry J.A. Goldberg, J. Benchimol and J. Orfanidis Reference: Compendium. 27 (2006): 582 – 586.