Accurate impressions remain one of the most important steps in restorative dentistry. Even with the rapid growth of digital scanning, traditional impression materials continue to play a central role in crowns, bridges, dentures, implants, and complex prosthetic workflows. Silicone and VPS (vinyl polysiloxane) materials remain the most widely used systems because of their consistency, accuracy, and dimensional stability.

In 2025, material science has refined both categories, giving clinicians more control over handling, hydrophilicity, and working time. The key is understanding when each material performs best, especially as clinicians balance cost, procedure type, and desired accuracy.

WholeDent supplies a full range of impression solutions, offering U.S. practices dependable materials for both routine and advanced restorative workflows. Choosing the right system can significantly reduce remakes, limit patient chair time, and improve prosthetic fit.

Why Impression Accuracy Still Matters in the Digital Era

Even though intraoral scanners are becoming more widespread, traditional impressions remain essential for many situations.

Dentists still choose physical impressions for:

• full-arch prosthetics
  
• complete dentures
  
• overdentures
  
• implant level impressions
  
• edentulous arches
  
• patients with limited mouth opening
  
• cases with bleeding or fluid interference
  
  

Physical materials capture soft tissue, compressible mucosa, and gingival contours more accurately than many entry-level scanners.

For cases requiring absolute precision, the choice of material can determine the success of the entire restoration.

Silicone Impression Materials: A Reliable, Cost-Effective Option

Silicone (or condensation silicone) impression materials have been used for decades. They provide good accuracy at an affordable price point, which makes them popular in general restorative dentistry.

Strengths of silicone materials

• affordable and predictable
  
• good for preliminary impressions
  
• easy to mix and handle
  
• acceptable detail reproduction
  
• appropriate for removable prosthodontics
  
  

Silicones work especially well for impressions where ultra high precision is less critical. Many clinicians use them for trays, denture work, study models, and certain indirect restorations.

However, silicones have limitations that affect ultra precise work:

• more prone to dimensional change over time
  
• hydrophobic, which makes moisture control more important
  
• often require immediate pouring
  
• slightly lower tear strength than VPS
  
  

For simple restorative procedures or removable work, silicone remains a cost efficient choice with dependable results. Dentists who prefer a familiar and versatile material can explore the range of silicone impression options available in WholeDent’s silicone materials collection, making it easier to match the product to the specific clinical needs of each case.

VPS Impression Materials: The Gold Standard for Precision

Vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) represents the most accurate traditional impression system available today. VPS materials are widely used in crown and bridge dentistry, implant work, and any case where ultra fine detail is required.

Advantages of VPS

• exceptional accuracy
  
• excellent dimensional stability for long-term storage
  
• high tear strength
  
• highly elastic and resistant to deformation
  
• more hydrophilic in modern formulas
  
• ideal for fixed prosthodontics and implants
  
  

VPS impressions can be poured multiple times without significant dimensional change, which is a major advantage for labs and for verification casts.

Modern formulas also improve hydrophilicity, allowing better flow into sulcus areas and around moist margins. This translates to fewer voids, fewer remakes, and more predictable prosthetic seating.

WholeDent’s VPS offerings fall into this category, giving clinicians ready access to high precision materials suitable for crowns, bridges, veneers, and implant superstructures.

Clinics searching for dependable materials can explore options through the WholeDent Impression Materials Collection which includes VPS, silicone, and related accessories for restorative and surgical workflows.

Key Differences: Silicone vs VPS

Understanding the distinctions helps clinicians choose the right system for each case.

1. Dimensional stability

• Silicone: moderate stability, pour immediately
  
• VPS: excellent stability, multiple pours possible
  
  

2. Accuracy

• Silicone: good
  
• VPS: excellent, ideal for fine margins and deep sulcus areas
  
  

3. Hydrophilicity

• Silicone: less hydrophilic
• VPS: significantly more hydrophilic in modern 2025 formulations
  
  

4. Tear resistance

• Silicone: moderate
  
• VPS: superior, ideal for tight interproximal contacts
  
  

5. Indications

• Silicone: study models, preliminary impressions, dentures
  
• VPS: crowns, bridges, implants, highly detailed prosthetics
  
  

6. Cost

• Silicone: more budget friendly
  
• VPS: higher cost but significant reduction in remakes
  
  

When VPS Is the Clear Choice

VPS should be the material of choice when accuracy is non negotiable. This includes:

• ceramic crowns and bridges
  
• implant impressions with open or closed trays
  
• veneer cases
  
• full-arch fixed restorations
  
• situations with narrow margins or deep preparations
  
• impressions requiring multiple pours
  
  

Its stability and precision make it a favorite for both clinicians and labs.

When Silicone Still Performs Better

Despite VPS superiority in precision, silicone continues to shine in several areas:

• preliminary impressions
• diagnostic models
• custom tray fabrication
• removable prosthodontics
• cost-controlled environments
  
• situations where ultra-fine margins are not required
  
  

Silicone is also ideal when the primary goal is speed, simplicity, and affordability.

For clinics looking for reliable silicone and VPS options, the WholeDent restorative and impression accessories collection also supports clinicians with companion materials that enhance impression quality.

Actionable Checklist: Choosing the Right Impression Material

Use this quick guide chairside.

✔ Choose VPS when precision for margins or implants is required
✔ Choose silicone for preliminary or removable prosthetic impressions
✔ Consider VPS for multiple pours or delayed model creation
✔ Use silicone when controlling costs for diagnostic work
✔ Select VPS for deep sulcus capture or moisture-sensitive margins
✔ Choose silicone for custom tray work and preliminary models
✔ Confirm your tray system matches the viscosity of the material

FAQ

Is VPS always better than silicone?

VPS is more accurate, stable, and hydrophilic, but silicone is still excellent for preliminary and removable impressions.

Can VPS replace digital scanning?

Not entirely. VPS still outperforms scanners in edentulous cases, full-arch soft tissue impressions, and situations with bleeding or fluid.

Is silicone suitable for fixed restorations?

It can work, but VPS is generally preferred because of its higher accuracy and stability.

How long can VPS impressions be stored?

Many VPS materials remain dimensionally stable for several weeks.

Should I use different trays for silicone and VPS?

Yes. Rigid trays or custom trays often improve VPS accuracy.

Conclusion

Both silicone and VPS impression materials play important roles in modern restorative workflows. Silicone remains a dependable choice for cost-effective preliminary and removable work, while VPS continues to lead in accuracy, hydrophilicity, and long-term dimensional stability.

Choosing the right material can significantly improve prosthetic fit, reduce adjustments, and decrease the risk of remakes. With updated formulas and consistent performance, the impression materials available through WholeDent help U.S. practices achieve predictable restorative outcomes with confidence.

References

1. Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(6):439–445. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60102-4

2. Gupta P, Saini DS, et al. Comparative evaluation of condensation silicone and VPS materials. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZC05–ZC09. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25115.10012

3. Wadhwa SS, Mehta R, Duggal N. Hydrophilicity and tear strength of VPS impression materials. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:5554883. doi:10.1155/2021/5554883