The Historical Evolution of Dental Impression

Materials
Ioannis Papadiochos, MD, DDS
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Athens, Greece

Sofia Papadiochou, DDS, MSc, PhD candidate

Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School of Athens
Kapodistrian, University of Athens

Ioannis Emmanouil, Associate Professor

Department of Removable Prosthodontics
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
The concept of impression making process in dentistry began in the mid 1800s.
Dentists realized that the construction of a prosthetic restoration required
both a detailed capture of the oral tissues along with stone cast fabrications.
To accomplish these goals, impression materials were essential. Beeswax
represents the first impression material, while important bechmarks during
the historical evolution of dental impression materials are considered to be
the introduction of dental trays in the early 1800s and the invention of the
gutta-percha, thermoplastic resins and plaster of Paris. The double (corrective)
impression technique, along with the functional impression concept that was
established after mid 1800s, are also identified as pivotal innovations. During
the 20th century, the advances in material development slowed significantly
since the majority of the current impression materials had already been
invented. However, the introduction of elastomeric impression materials
in the field of prosthodontics that offered the advantages of accuracy and
dimensional stability substantially upgraded both the impression accuracy
and the quality of the final restoration. Presently, the dental practitioner
has access to a variety of impression materials and should be aware of their
properties, indications and limitations as well. Futhermore, while continuous
attempts are being made to enhance these materials, the ideal impression
material has yet to be developed. The purpose of this article was to provide a
comprehensive review about the historical development of impression dental
materials.
Correspondence:
Sofia Papadiochou
Vasileos Pavlou 47
Spata Attiki, 19004
Athens, Greece
sofiapapadiochou@gmail.com

79 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017

 

Dental impression making was developed ever
since humans realized that the basic prerequisite
for successful tooth replacement required capturing
of the tooth morphology, along with the patient’s
functional characteristics. However up to mid
1800s, no official source had been identified
indicating the presence of an impression material
for tooth and/or dental alveolar processes.1-3 This
was due to the lack of the concepts for complete
dentures fabrication and the lack of awareness of
preparing a stone cast for the fabrication of the
intended restoration.2,3 Before 1700s, the fabrication
of prosthetic restorations in partially edentulous
persons involved cases with only posterior abutment
teeth. These restorations that were made from ivory
or wood and sometimes were fixed in gold plates.2
For the fabrication of esthetic restorations, Ancient
Egyptians wired and stabilized artificial teeth
with the remaining natural abutments.2 Up to 18th
century, the prosthetic restorations consisted of ox’s
teeth and bone, hippopotamus and sea cow ivory
tusks and human cadaver’s teeth.4 A widely applied
practice involved coloring of the edentulous dento-
alveolar ridges through a dye while pressing of ivory
blocks or bone was carried out against the painted
surface.1,2 Any contact areas were then scrapped
away in order to obtain better adaptation of the
anticipated prosthetic restoration. 1,2
The first officially registered impression
technique along with the fabrication of dental casts
in the history of dentistry is dated back in 1756,
at Berlin and was performed by Philip Pfaff (1713-
1766), a German dentist of King Frederick II of
Prussia.3-6 Bees wax was the material applied in that
first impression making process.4
Τhe introduction of wax in dentistry
has been ascribed to a German surgeon named
Matthias Gottfried Purmann (1648-1711) in 1711.2

Figure 1. The cover and title page of Pfaff’s textbook “Abhandlung von den Zahnen des menschlichen
Korpers und deren Krankheiten” in 1756.

Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017 80

Historical Evolution of Dental Impression Materials
Dental applications with wax did not involve an In United States of America (USA) the
impression making procedure but rather fabrication introduction of impression making procedure was
of handmade wax patterns for the intended favored by a family of dentists named Greenwood.
prosthetic restorations.3,7 These wax patterns were In 1788, John Greenwood, (1760-1819) a New York
then handled by a craftsman who carved in detail surgeon-dentist, who manufactured and repaired
the ivory or wooden blocks in order to design the dentures for George Washington, published an
morphological characteristics of the restoration.7 advertisement in the New York Daily Advertiser
A second German surgeon Lorenz Heister (1683- journal reporting verbatim “Persons at any distance
1758) in the revised third edition of his textbook may be supplied with artificial teeth by sending an
entitled “Small Surgery” described wax placement impression, taken in Wax, of the vacant place where
inside the post-extraction dentoalveolar sockets in wanted.”11,12 The aforementioned advertisement is
order to obtain an impression of their dimensions. 8
considered the earliest clear report for the presence
The latter, according to Hoffmann-Axthelm, is of dental stone casts applied to the fabrication
considered the first report for impression making of prosthetic restorations in the newly founded
with wax, however, limited to single
or few dentoalveolar pockets without
fabrication of the corresponding
stone casts.9
In the textbook authored by
Philip Pfaff entitled “Abhandlung
von den Zähnen des menschlichen
Körpers und deren Krankheiten”
(Treatise on the teeth of the human
body and their diseases) (Fig. 1), the
author cited that the first impression
of the edentulous jaws was segmented
including two half-jaw impressions, Figure 2. An impression tray in Paul B. Goddard’s textbook “The
one at a time, in order to avoid the Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology of The Human Teeth” in 1844.
distortion of the entire jaw impression (Reprinted from the Glenner RA. Dental impressions. J Hist Dent
after its removal outside the mouth.10 1997; 45: 127-130)
These two separate impressions were
thereafter joined together. Pfaff’s technique involved country of USA. Noteworthy is a letter of Isaac
smoothing the sealing wax via immersion in warm John Greenwood (John’s Greenwood son) to Dr.
water so as to facilitate the impression making Jonathan Tuft, dated in 1861, advocated that both
procedure and to ensure a detailed capturing of his grandfather (Isaac Greenwood/dental practice in
soft oral tissues characteristics. With regard to the
10
Boston before the American War of Independence)
fabrication of stone dental cast, almond oil was used and his father (George Greenwood, dental practice
as separating agent applied on the surface of the until 1819) used bees wax instead of plaster of Paris
impression before pouring stone into the impression as material for the fabrication of dental casts.11,12
with a spoon.10 The concept of jaw relations recording In the same letter, he (John Greenwood) cited that
is also attributed to Philip Pfaff who applied bee wax neither Isaac John Greenwood nor his brother,
for the registration of maximum intercuspation.10 In Clarke Greenwood, had used plaster of Paris for the
1782, an Englishman, William Rae reproduced the fabrication of dental casts up to 1820.11,12
dimensions of both jaws in a patient via compressing In the second edition of Samuel Sheldon
a wax block over the gingival tissues. Thereafter he
5
Fitch’s textbook entitled “A System of Dental
fabricated dental stone casts via plaster of Paris. 5
Surgery” that was published in 1835 in Philadelphia

81 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017

 Papadiochos et al

of USA, it was clearly reported

the following “the manner of
taking the shape and figure of the
mouth.”13 This book represented
the first systematic dissertation
about the topic of American dental
practice.3 According to the author,
the impression technique included
a piece of wax, usually bees wax,
which was softened in warm water
or flame and pressed over the teeth
and gingival tissues.13 When the
waxy impression stiffened, it was
removed from the mouth and paste
of the sulfate of lime or gypsum or
plaster of Paris was poured into the
mold.13 Thereafter, melting of wax
followed in order to make dental
stone casts. When the intended
dentures were to be fabricated from
gold, Fitch suggested brass instead
of plaster as material of choice for
the fabrication of dental casts.13
Throughout the evolution
of dental impression techniques,
the invention of special dental trays
in the early 1800s is considered a
significant benchmark. In 1820,
the French Christophe François
Dellabare reported “softened wax is
to be placed in a small track, or semi-
elliptical cast of white metal or silver,
on the front side of which a haft or
handle is mounted. The walls of this
instrument provide resistance and
keep the pressure of the cheeks away
from the wax. After the cast has
been pressed on firmly, it is carefully
pulled off in the direction of the teeth
and immersed in cold water. Then
the excess is removed with a spring
blade, and it is replaced briefly once
more.”14 The introduction of dental Figure 3. Maury’s impression trays with the relevant armamentarium
trays was a crucial innovation and, (dental chair, cuspidor) in 1830. (Reprinted from Maury F.
undoubtedly improved the quality Vollstäandiges Hardbuch der Zahnarzkunde, Weimar 1830)
of the impression. Finally, Dellabare

Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017 82

Historical Evolution of Dental Impression Materials

its significance so as the posterior border of maxilla

could be captured. Taking into account that plaster
models were not hard enough to form gold dentures,
both Harris and Fitch recommended fabrication of
metal models.16 Harris applied a technique used in
iron and brass foundries, making an impression of a
plaster model in sand.16 This mold was filled with a
mixture of zinc and tin. He then explained in detail
how a metallic impression was fabricated on this
model and a gold denture was pressed between the
two.16
A similar method of impression taking
was also described by Paul B Goddard in 1844 in
Pennsylvania of USA, using pure yellow bees wax
as impression material, which had been immersed
in warm water (100º F) and placing a piece of waxed
muslin in the circumference of the dental tray.17
(Fig. 2) During the pouring of dental plaster of
Paris, Goddard recommended hammering the table
where the dental tray had been placed on, in order to
remove air bubbles and to enable a better adaptation
of the plaster.17

Figure 4. Charles Stent (Reprinted from Ring ME.

How a dentist’s name became a synonym for a life-
saving device: The story of Dr. Charles Stent. J Hist
Dent 2001;41:77-80)
was mistakenly ascribed the invention of dental
impression making procedure to Nicolas Dubois de
Chèmant.15
In 1839, Chapin Harris published in
Baltimore the first edition of his textbook entitled
“The Dental Art, Practical Treatise on Dental Surgery”
that represented the most popular dental textbook
in that time period.3 Harris dedicated a chapter
(an extended version of Fitch’s project) describing
the fabrication stages of a dental cast, supporting
the use of well-calcified plaster of Paris for pouring
models; this plaster should had been passed through Figure 5. The logotype of stent material produced by
a fine sieve and the amount of plaster should be at Claudius Ash and Sons company. (Reprinted from
least one-half inch above the wax.16 Harris used the Ring ME. How a dentist’s name became a synonym
term “ frame” instead of dental tray and highlighted for a life-saving device: The story of Dr. Charles
Stent. J Hist Dent 2001;41:77-80.)

83 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017

 Papadiochos et al

In 1830, a French dentist named F.

Maury depicted a variety of dental trays in
different sizes while in 1843 presented a new
kind of wax composed of 10 parts of wax and 1
part of resin.18 (Fig. 3) He realized however, that
this type of wax was very soft for impression
procedure and preferred eventually yellow or
white wax.19 Finally, Maury recommended
that the most appropriate dental wax for
impression making procedure should consist
of 12 parts of white wax, one part white lead
and one-half part oil.19
In 1840, Charles de Loude published
in London, a report concerning the use of
dental trays.20 He used either cups or matrices
made of tin adjusted to the shapes of the
entire jaw, half-jaw, jaw quadrants or anterior
groups of six teeth in both jaws.20 During that
period, Desirabode (1847) indicated that he
placed wax in a “receptable” (as he referred
to) of elliptical shape made of tin or silver
which in the anterior part had a handle.21
The walls of the “receptable” prevented from
the distortion of the impression material.21
Later, he abandoned this method due to the
disadvantage of pain production resulting
from greater exerted pressure during the
impression taking compared with the
corresponding one produced by hands.1 He
also presented as drawback of this impression
method the production of oversized
Figure 6. Samuel S. White, founder of the SS White Co.
impressions.1
(Reproduced from “In Memory of Dr. Samuel S. White and
In 1842 Montgomery discovered
Dr. James W. White,” The SS White Dental Manufacturing
gutta-percha, which belongs to the
Co, 1893). The same portrait appeared as the frontispiece in
Sapotaceae, a family of flowering plants in
Dent Cosmos 1880;22)
Malaysia.1 Colburn and Blake, two American
dentists, were the first who used gutta-percha not gain wide acceptance as impression material due
as impression material in 1848.1 Colburn suggested to the rigidity and the high temperature involved in
that gutta-percha should be immersed in boiling softening for its application.1
water, similar to wax, in order to be adjusted firmly The introduction of Plaster of Paris as
in the intended for impression intraoral region.22 impression material in the field of dentistry first
Blake complied with Colburn’s guidelines however occurred in 1844.1,3 This innovation was attributed
he indicated the presence of indentations in a to the American dentists-researchers E.J.Dunning,
“support frame” for the retention of the impression Amos Wescott, Levi Gilbert and W.H. Dwinelle.
material.23 Despite the initial dentists’ interest for 15.24,25 In particular, it was that on March 1844,
gutta-percha after its initial use, this material did Wescott credited the professional initiative to

Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017 84

Historical Evolution of Dental Impression Materials

Dunning who replaced the wax with plaster manufactured by Mr. E.T Starr.33 The design of those
since the impressions produced with wax were dental trays was similar with the current ones.33 The
distorted.26 The fabrication of dental casts implied trays were made of light metal so as to be adjusted
that the surface of the impressions should have been with either fingers or pliers, while the advertisement
coated with a separating agent such as varnish or
goma laca.3 In 1862, Franklin performed the double
impression technique for the first time, using wax
for the primary impression and plaster of Paris in
the second corrective impression (plaster wash).27
A similar double impression technique was also
described by Wescott in 1870, involving wax
and overextended dental trays derived from the
initial impression, while a second final corrective
impression with plaster of Paris followed.26
In 1856-57, an English dentist named Charles
Stent, after experi menting with different types of
dental waxes possessing the ability to solidify in oral
temperature, introduced a thermoplastic material
that bears his name and was composed of synthetic
resin.15,28 (Figs. 4, 5) Presently, the composition of the
material remains similar. In USA, the introduction
of thermoplastic synthetic resins is attributed to
Figure 7. An impression tray included in the
Samuel Stockton White (Fig. 6) (1874).1 The invention
textbook “S. S. White Dental Catalog” in 1876.
of thermoplastic synthetic resins aimed to outplace
(Reprinted from the article of Glenner RA. Dental
both pure wax and plaster of Paris from the existing
impressions. J Hist Dent 1997; 45: 127-130)
dental impression procedures. However, in the late
1870s, the dominating perception among dentists
dictated that the plaster of Paris would remain the included both Dr Thomas’s set of dental trays for
most important impression material during the plaster impression (3 different sizes of mandibular
succeeding years.15,29 dental trays) and the Wardl’s palatal dental tray.33
In 1864, a German dentist from Alsatia, Five years later, in 1876, Samuel S. White appended
named Johann Joseph Schrott described in detail in a Dental Catalog a set of porcelain dental trays in
a new functional impression technique in a various shapes and sizes, with a cost equivalent to
congress of “Central Verein Deutcher Zahnärtze” in the metallic ones, namely 50 cents (American) per
Munich.30,31 The method involved making of wax piece.34 (Fig. 7)
impressions in upper and lower jaw, joining them In 1887, A.G Bennett in the textbook entitled
with springs extra-orally and using gutta-percha “The American System of Dentistry” that a perfect
as intermediate sticking agent in a way similar to impression along with a right mounting of dental
the modern registration rims.29,30 This appliance casts on the articulator represented basic principles
was placed intra-orally, while patient performed in prosthodontics.35 According to Bennett, the
functional movements for 10 minutes.30,31 It can available impression materials at that time period
be assumed that Schrott defined the principles of were the wax, the plaster of Paris, the thermoplastic
functional impressions as we know them today.32 synthetic resins and the gutta-percha.35 As Bennett
In 1871, James W. White published cited, each of the aforementioned had indications,
“Taking Impressions of The Mouth” advertising a while the most recently invented dental impression
set of 15 maxillary and mandibular dental trays, material was thermoplastic synthetic resins

85 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017


consisted of carmine (deep-red pigment), talk,
stearic acid and dammar gum.35 Bennett preferred
thermoplastic synthetic resins over gutta-percha,
since they had no sticky texture and did not contract
during application.35 He also claimed that although
impression making procedure with Plaster of Paris
was laborious, it resulted to more precise outcomes
compared with dental wax.35
In the 1900s, the advances in the field of
dental impression procedures seemed to come to
an abrupt halt. During the 19th century, as it has
been cited in the “Index of the periodical Dental
Literature”, over 200 articles had been published in
the American dental journals about the impression
materials, impression techniques and the relevant
armamentarium.3 In the scientific textbooks of
Harris, White and Essig the terminology used in
the fabrication stages of complete dentures were
clearly reported.36-38 In particular, these textbooks
highlighted the significance of atmospheric
pressure, maximum extension of denture base and
uniform distribution of pressure and peripheral seal
of complete dentures.36-38
The succeeding years after 1845, a transition
from a single impression technique towards a
double corrective impression method was seen.37,38
The latter implied a first impression made of wax,
gutta-percha or thermoplastic synthetic resin and a
second one involving coating of the first one with
plaster of Paris. At the end of 19th century, the
dental practitioner had the access to various types
of dental trays. According to the English dental
literature, the terms that had been used in that time
period, were the “impression trays” and “impression
cups”.2 Overall, the impression trays were metallic
so as to display strength, rigidity, durability and
light weight.2 The most common metals for the
fabrication of the metallic trays were copper and
antimony alloys as well as aluminum in sheets so as
to be individualized.2 Other metals applied for the
construction of the dental trays was the lead, zinc
alloy, pewter, silver, copper, German silver (nickel
silver) and tin.2 With regard to the characteristics
of the impression trays, these involved round or
square troughs (depending on the material) and
high, short or double (upper and lower) flanges.2
Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017
Papadiochos et al
The upper flange aimed to retract the cheeks,
lips, and tongue and to prevent them from being
included into the impression, while the lower flange
brought the impression material into contact with
the ridge and bordering tissue.2 A special type of
dental tray possessed an open trough, through
which impression plaster was poured in order to
be distributed throughout the denture bearing
area and all crevices of the remaining teeth.2 The
primary impression trays applied in the double/
corrective method were nonmetal made of gutta-
percha or vulcanite.2 Finally, porcelain impression
trays had also been constructed, displaying,
however, the drawback of fragmentation and lack of
individualization.3
In the beginning of 20th century, the
contribution of the dentists J. H. Greene, P.T.
Greene and Rupert Hall to the establishment and
propagation of thermoplastic synthetic resins was
crucial.1 During the initial decade, the Greene
brothers mentioned for the first time, the term
“posterior dam” and introduced the “closed mouth”
impression technique combining the applications
of plaster and synthetic resin material.1,39,40 The
aforementioned impression technique is known as
Hall’s method, since Hall made some modifications
to improve the technique in 1915.40
In 1925, the Austrian physicist Alphons
Poller, from Vienna, invented the first elastomeric
impression material composed of reversible
hydrocolloid agar-agar with the trade name
“Nogacall”. Poller received the British patent award
for making impressions in-vivo with reversible
hydrocolloid material.41 In 1928, since the
Americans had recognized the patent, Poller sold
the commercial rights of the impression material
to DeTrey brothers.42 In 1931, the DeTreys released
in the market a modified version of the impression
material with the trade name “Dentocole”.43 The
following years, other companies launched in the
market similar impression materials with various
trade names.43 In 1940 Paffenbarger conducted
scientific studies in order to investigate the
properties of “Dentocole”.44 The use of reversible
hydrocolloid agar-agar was arrested during World
War II, since the production of the raw material
86
Historical Evolution of Dental Impression Materials

(agar) was performed in Japan.1,43 polyether and is promoted as a hydrophilic material

During the 1930s, A.W. Ward and E.B. Kelly that apparently exhibited the dimensional stability
introduced the zinc oxide eugenol sealer (ZnOE), of the parent products.54
which was being implemented previously in the Overall, the majority of the cited impression
cementation of fixed partial dentures. In 1932,
1,45
dental materials in this article are currently applied
Ward cited that the main application of ZnOE in the dental practice. Presently, the ideal impression
sealer was as surgical cement and incidentally material in dentistry has not been invented yet.
as impression material during the fabrication of The existing plethora of impression materials
complete dentures.46,47 To the contrary, in 1937, dictates that the dental practitioner should be
Kelly suggested ZnOE
could be used exclusively as
an impression material.48
In 1935, a few
years before World War
II, the English chemist
William Wilding invented
a new type of hydrocolloid
based on sodium alginate
that had replaced agar-
agar hydrocolloid up to
1939.45,49 In 1955, S.L.
Pearson in the university
of Liverpool invented the
first polymeric elastomeric
of mercaptan thatwas
released in the market with
the trade name “Thiokol”.50
Soon after, elastomeric
condensation silicones
were introduced while
Figure 8. The diagram depicts the chronological development of dental
in 1965, polyethers were
impression materials.
launched into the market.1
In 1975, addition - cured
silicones were generated because of Apollo space knowledgeable about the properties, the indications
program. Armstrong’s boots were composed
44
and the limitations of their application. (Fig. 8) In
of addition silicone exhibiting high dimensional the last 20 years, the impression making process
stability. 51,52
According to Brown, the first human- in dentistry has obtained a new character thanks
made impression on the moon contributed to the to the generation and rapid development of CAD-
generation of the best impression material for dental CAM (Computed aided design/Computed aided
use. The first light cured impression material
53
manufacturing) systems involving digital intraoral
composed of polyether urethane dimethacrylate scanning. In the near future, it is expected that
was commercially introduced in 1988. In 2009,
45
CAM-CAM technology will be more accessible to
EXAlence (EXAlence; GC America, Alsip, Ill) the dentist in terms of cost and handling, simplifying
launched into the market a vinyl polyether silicone and optimizing the impression procedure.
product (VPS) and which is composed of a
combination of (VPS) vinyl polysiloxane and (PE)

87 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017


References
1. Starcke EN. A historical review of complete
denture impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc.
1975;91(5):1037-1041.
2. Zinner ID. Sherman H. An analysis of the
development of complete denture impression
materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1981;46(3):242-249.
3. Glenner RA. Dental impressions. J Hist Dent.
1997;45(3):127-130.
4. Hoffmann-Axthelm W. History of Dentistry.
Chicago: Quintessence Pub.Co. 1981.
5. Smith M. A short history of dentistry. London,
Alan Wingate (Pub.) Ltd.1958.
6. Ibid #4, p. 229.
7. Ibid #4 p. 183.
8. Heister L. Kleine Chirurgie oder Handbuch der
Wundtartzney, 3rd ed., Nurnberg. 1767.
9. Ibid #4 p. 226.
10. Pfaff P. Abhadlung von den Zahnen des
menschlichen Korpers und deren Krankheiten,
Berlin 1756. Reprint ed. Walter Hoffmann-Axthelm,
Hildesheim. 1966.
11. Weinberg B. An introduction to the History Of
Dentistry, vol. 2. St. Louis, Mosby. 1942. pp. 225, 253.
12. Greenwood IJ. The Early History of the Profession
in the United States. Dent Reg. 1861;15: 29-37.
13. Fitch SS. A System of Dental Surgery, 2nd ed.
Philadelphia, Carey, Lea, and Blanchard. 1835.
Pp.427-428.
14. Delabarre CF. A treatise on the Mechanical part
of the Art of the Dentist. Paris. 1820.
Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017
Papadiochos et al
15. Ibid #4, p. 268.
16. Harris CA. The Dental Art, Practical Treatise
on Dental Surgery. Baltimore, 1839. Classics of
Dentistry Library edition. pp. 348-355.
17. Goddard PB. The Anatomy, Physiology, and
Pathology of the Human Teeth. Philadelphia, Carey
and Hart. 1844. Pp. 170-171.
18. Ibid #4. p. 267.
19. Maury F. Treatise on the Dental Art. Philadelphia,
Lea and Blanchhard, 1843 Pp. 189-190.
20. de Loude, L. C. In Boucher, C.O. (ed). Swenson’s
complete dentures, (ed). St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Co.
1964. p. 702.
21. Desirabode M. Complete elements of the science
and art of the dentists. Baltimore, American Society
of Dental Surgeons, (2nd edition) 1847. p. 435.
22. Colburn GF. Gutta percha-its uses. Am J Dent
Sci. 8 (old series): 1848.
23. Blake WP. A letter. Am J Dent Sci. 8 (old series):
1848.
24. White SS. A History of Dental and Oral Science
of America. Philadelphia, American Academy of
Dental Science. 1876. Pp. 46-47.
25. Harris CA. A Dictionary of Dental Science.
Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blakiston. 1849. Pp. 385-
386.
26. Wescott A. Use of plaster of Paris for taking
impressions of the mouth. Dent Cosmos. 12:1870.
27. Franklin BW. Plaster impressions and other
things. Vulcanite. 1: 155 1861.
28. Ring M. How a dentist’s name became a
synonym for a life-saving device: The story of Dr.
Charles Stent. J Hist Dent 2001;49:77-80.
88
29. American Academy of Dental Science. A History
of Dental and Oral Science of America. Philadelphia,
Samuel S. White. 1876. p. 47.
30. Schrott JJ. Bericht VI. Jahresvers. Central-
Verein dtsch. Zahnarzte. Dtsch. Vjschr.Zanheilk.4.
1864;267-270.
31. Schrott JJ. System den genauesten Abdruck und
die sicherste Artikulation zu erhulten. Dtsch. Vjschr.
Zanheilk. 4. 1864; 296-304.
32. Ibid #4, p. 269.
33. White JW. Taking Impressions of The Mouth.
Philadelphia, Samuel S. White. 1871. Pp. 55-75.
34. White SS. SS White Dental Catalog. Philadelphia,
Pp. 207-317.
35. Litch WF. ed. The American System of Dentistry,
Vol. 2. Philadelphia, Lea Brothers and Co., 1887. Pp.
453-473.
36. Harris CA. The Principles and Practice of Dental
Surgery, ed 2, part 6. Philadelphia, 1845. Lindsay &
Blakiston, Chaps 2 and 4.
37. White JW. Taking Impressions of the Mouth, ed
2, Philadelphia, Samuel S. White Dental Mfg. Co.
1876.
38. Essig CJ. The American Textbook of Prosthetic
Dentistry. Philadelphia, 1896, Henry Kimpton, chap
6;ed 2, York, 1900, Lea Brothers and Co.
39. A century service dentistry. Philadelphia, S. S.
White Dental Mfg. Co.1944. P. 435.
40. Bremner MDK. The story of Dentistry. New
York, Dental Items of Interest Pub.Co. 1958. P. 284.
41. Hansson O, Eklund J. A historical review
of hydrocolloids and an investigation of the
89 Journal of the History of Dentistry/Vol. 65, No. 2 Summer/Fall 2017
dimensional accuracy of the new alginates for
crown and bridge impressions when using stock
trays. Swed Dent J. 1984;8(2):81-95.
42. British patent No.252, 112, Sept 1925.
43. Ibid #4, p. 284.
44. Paffenbarger GC. Hydrocolloidal impressions
materials: Physical properties and a specification. J
Amer Dent Ass. 1940; 27:273-388.
45. Smith DC. Development of glass-ionomer
cement systems. Biomaterials. 1998;19(6):467–478.
46. US Patent No.1,866,433, July 5, 1932.
47. Cotter SW. Zinc oxide paste- an impression
material. Illinois Dent J. 1938; (Oct)7: 392.
48. US Patent No.2,077,418. April 20, 1937.
49. Jorgensen KD. Indlaeg og kroner. Odontologiska
Boghandels Forlag Copenhagen 1978 p. 46.
50. Pearson SL. A New Elastic Impression Material:
A Preliminary report. Br Dent J. 1955; 99:72-76.
51. Jorgensen KD. Thermal expansion of addition
polymerization (Type II) silicon impressions
materials. Australian Dent J. 1982;27(6):377-381.
52. Wilson N and Gelbier S. The history and impact
of development in dental biomaterials over the last
60 years. Brit Dent Assoc 2014. pp. 72-73.
53. Brown D. An update on Elastomeric impression
materials. Brit Dent J. 1981;150(2):35-40.
54. Nassar U, Oko A, Adeeb S, El-Rich M, Flores-
Mir C. An in vitro study on the dimensional stability
of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material
over a prolonged storage period. J Prosthet Dent.
2013;109(3):172-178.