Statement of problem: Silicone Index Tooth Tray impression system which does not use gingicord has a shortcoming. It takes time to remove internal wall of Silicone Index Tooth Tray for space of wash impression material. Purpose: This study was to evaluate whether providing certain space to impression body can prevent from doing complicated laboratory work. Material and methods: After mounting metal dies with shoulder and chamfer margins arbiturarily, SITT was produced using $Blu-mousse^(R)$. In one experimental group, wash impression was taken using $Fit-tester^(R)$ without removing interior surface of SITT and in the other group, wash impression was taken using $Fit-tester^(R)$ providing 0.5mm space in the SITT and then compared the differences in two groups. Results: 1. There was no significant difference between a group which did not allow space and a group which granted equal 0.5mm space. 2. There was no significant difference between gingival diameter, occlusal diameter of metal die that has shoulder margin and gingival diameter, occlusal diameter of metal die that has chamfer margin. 3. There was no significant difference between a group which did not take pick-up impression and a group which took pick-up impression through relining method using SITT 4. There was no significant difference between a group that poured immediately after taking primary impression and a group that poured after removing poured stone die. Conclusions: When taking an impression of an abutment using SITT impression system, it is considered to obtain clinically identical results between a group that did not grant a 0.5mm space within SITT for wash impression and a group which invest a space. Furthermore, it is considered possible to produce an individual die through secondary pouring.