CODS - Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Resistance and Surface Hardness of Two Elastomeric Interocclusal Recording Materials: An In Vitro Study

Vidya S Bhat, Shifas Hameed, Sanha Razdan, Sanath Shetty

Keywords : Bite registration, Compressive resistance, Hardness, Interocclusal record material

Citation Information : Bhat VS, Hameed S, Razdan S, Shetty S. A Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Resistance and Surface Hardness of Two Elastomeric Interocclusal Recording Materials: An In Vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2022; 14 (2):33-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10063-0135

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the compressive resistance at varying thicknesses and surface hardness of Exabite II and Ramitec interocclusal recording materials. Materials and methods: In the present study, the compressive resistance and the surface hardness of Exabite II and Ramitec were studied when subjected to a constant compressive load. Various thicknesses of the interocclusal recording materials were selected. As standard cylindrical stainless steel dies with an internal diameter of 10 mm and three different heights of 2, 3, and 4 mm, a metal plate, and a metal base were prepared, fabricating 80 specimens for the study. A universal testing machine (UTI) was used and subjected to a constant compressive force of 25 N and Shore A hardness tester at 1 and 72 hrs time intervals to test the compressive resistance and surface hardness, respectively. Results: The 2 mm thickness specimens showed the least compression, and the 4 mm thickness specimen showed maximum compression under a constant load of 25 N for both the materials tested. The independent t-test (p ≤ 0.05) indicated a significant difference in surface hardness between the materials at different time intervals. Both materials possessed higher surface hardness at 72 hours than at 1 hour. Conclusion: The compressive resistance of both materials was inversely proportional to the thickness of the sample. This implies that the minimum thickness of the recording materials should be used for recording maxillomandibular relations without sacrificing the strength of the interocclusal record.

  1. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis A, Anastasiadou V, et al. An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part III: resistance to compression after setting. J Prosthodont 2004;13(4):233–237. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04038.x
  2. Berry DC, Singh BP. Daily variations in occlusal contacts. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50(3):386–391. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(83)80099-7
  3. Delong R, Anderson GC, Hodges JS, et al. Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):622–630. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.129379
  4. Prasad K, Prasad BR, Prasad A, et al. Interocclusal records in prosthodontic rehabilitations - materials and techniques - a literature review. Nitte University Journal of Health Science 2012;2(3):54–60. DOI: 10.1055/S-0040-1703593
  5. Campos AA, Nathanson D. Compressibility of two polyvinyl siloxane interocclusal record materials and its effect on mounted cast relationships. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(4):456–461. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70034-x
  6. Fattore L, Malone WF, Sandrik JL, et al. Clinical evaluation of the accuracy of interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51(2):152–157. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(84)90251-8
  7. Freilich MA, Altieri JV, Wahle JJ. Principles for selecting interocclusal records for articulation of dentate and partially dentate casts. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(2):361–367. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90346-c
  8. Vergos VK, Tripodakis AP. Evaluation of vertical accuracies of interocclusal records. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(4):365–368. PMID: 12956489
  9. Tripodakis AP, Vergos VK, Tsoutsos AG. Evaluation of the accuracy of interocclusal records in relation to two recording techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(2):141–146. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70227-0
  10. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis A, Anastasiadou V, et al. An experimental study on particular physical properties of several interocclusal recording media. Part I: consistency prior to setting. J Prosthodont 2004;13(1):42–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04005.x
  11. Dua P, Gupta SH, Ramachandran S, et al. Evaluation of four elastomeric interocclusal recording materials. Med J Armed Forces India 2007;63(3):237–240. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-1237(07)80143-2
  12. Millstein PL, Clark RE, Myerson RL. Differential accuracy of silicone-body interocclusal records and associated weight loss due to volatiles. J Prosthet Dent 1975;33(6):649–654. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(75)80128-4
  13. Hatzi P, Tzakis M, Eliades G. Setting characteristics of vinyl-polysiloxane interocclusal recording materials. Dent Mater 2012;28(7):783–791. DOI: 10.1016/
  14. Filiz K, Sema A. Compressive strength of interocclusal recording materials. Braz Dent J 2001;12(1):43–46.
  15. Mullick SC, Stackhouse JA Jr, Vincent GR. A study of interocclusal record materials. J Prosthet Dent 198l;46(3):304–307. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90219-5
  16. Malone WFP, Koth DL, Cavazos E. Tylman's Theory and Practice of Fixed Prosthodontics. St. Louis Ishiyaku Euro-America 1989;8:273–282.
  17. Chai J, Tan E, Pang IC. A study of the surface hardness and dimensional stability of several intermaxillary registration materials. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(6):538–542. PMID: 7748448
  18. Lassila V. Comparison of five interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):215–218. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90347-1
  19. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. St. Louis, MO, Mosby 2001;3:154–165. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/29.4.328-a
  20. Breeding LC, Dixon DL. Compression resistance of four interocclusal recording materials. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(6):876–878. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90542-i
  21. Braden M, Elliot JC. Characterization of the setting process of silicone dental rubber. J Dent Res 1966;45(4):1016–1023. DOI: 10.1177/00220345660450040101
  22. Council on dental materials, instruments, and equipment: Vinyl polysiloxane impression materials: a status report. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:595–600. PMID: 2186077
  23. Craig RG. Review of’ dental impression materials. Adv Dent Res 1988;2(1):51–64. DOI: 10.1177/08959374880020012001
  24. Karthikeyan K, Annapoorani H. Comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal record materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2007;7:24–27.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.