Write your awesome label here.
Product Review:
Kettenbach's Identium
Creating reliable and accurate restorative impressions
This executive report provides the results of the Catapult Education’s Identium Impression material product review. Identium, a new impression material, has properties and advantages of both polyether impression materials and A-silicone impression materials. Polyether materials exhibit dimensional stability and wettability. A-silicones have exhibit high elastic recovery with flexibility for mouth removal and have a neutral or good taste. Identium, based on the new material, Vinylsiloxanether is a medium viscosity, addition-curing elastomeric impression material.
Ratings by Identium performance with impression characteristics:
There were 19 reviewers involved in this product review. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the clinical performance of Identium and to compare the quality of Identium to other currently used impression materials. Most of our reviewers currently use A-silicone material and 30% use polyethers. Our reviewers took over 200 impressions with Identium.
One of the most challenging procedures in dentistry is obtaining an ideal impression for fixed restorations. Making an accurate impression requires understanding the anatomy surrounding the finish line, the material being used both for impressions and gingival displacement, and the correct use of impression trays. A recent evaluation conducted within a commercial dental laboratory determined that 86% of crown-and-bridge impressions contained at least one detectable error and 55% contained a critical error related to the finish line. A quality, reliable impression material is critical. Retaking impressions is both time and material consuming and an expense that should be minimized.
When considering which errors necessitated impression retakes, our reviewers ranked missed margins as number 1. Bubbles/voids, tear errors and distortion errors followed missed margins. Also noted were fin/folds, contamination, lack of integration between tray and injected material, inadequate working time for multiunit impressions, and incorrect tray selection. A majority of our reviewers (61%), rated Identium ‘Better to Much Better’ than their current impression material. 16% rated Identium ‘About the Same’ as their current impression material. Overwhelmingly (79%), our reviewers would use Identium in their practices. The reviewers ranked the viscosity of light body, tray seating resistance, syringing ease, working time around multiple units and tray loading as favorable about 60% of the time.
When considering which errors necessitated impression retakes, our reviewers ranked missed margins as number 1. Bubbles/voids, tear errors and distortion errors followed missed margins. Also noted were fin/folds, contamination, lack of integration between tray and injected material, inadequate working time for multiunit impressions, and incorrect tray selection. A majority of our reviewers (61%), rated Identium ‘Better to Much Better’ than their current impression material. 16% rated Identium ‘About the Same’ as their current impression material. Overwhelmingly (79%), our reviewers would use Identium in their practices. The reviewers ranked the viscosity of light body, tray seating resistance, syringing ease, working time around multiple units and tray loading as favorable about 60% of the time.
Ratings by Identium performance with impression characteristics:
1. Gingival Margin Quality: 64% Better than current
2. Impression Detail: 58% Better than current
3. Voids and Bubbles: 54% Better than current
4. Folds and Fins: 47% About the same
5. Depth of Sulcus Penetration: 74% Better than current
6. Subgingival Margin Detail: 66% Better than current
7. Ease of Removing impression: 42% Better than current
8. Tearing Resistance: 63% Better than current
Several reviewers felt the colors of the tray and syringable material are too close to each other and make reading margins difficult. Others commented that the material was difficult to remove.
Identium would be an excellent choice for implant impressions, multiple unit impressions, impressions where isolation is compromised, and impressions with subgingival preps. The majority Catapult reviewers agreed that Identium has improved properties compared to their current impression material and would use it in their clinical practice and include in their lectures.
Identium, Kettenbach receives The Catapult Vote of Confidence.
Catapult Education would like to thank Kettenbach for the opportunity to review this product
and looks forward to expanding its presence in our profession.
Write your awesome label here.
Ready to get started?
Enter your email for exciting offers from our partners, cutting-edge course offerings, and so much more.
Thank you!
1615 NW 4th Ave, Delray Beach, FL 33444 | United States