Author:
Khaledi A.A.R.,Bahrani M.,Shirzadi S.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem:
Bonding failure between acrylic resin and soft liner material and also gradual loss of soft liner resiliency over time are two impending challenges frequently recognized with a denture base embraced with a resilient liner. Since patients drink various beverages, it is crucial to assess the influences of these beverages on physical characteristics of soft liners.
Purpose:
This in vitro study envisioned to assess the influence of food simulating agents (FSA) on the hardness of a silicone soft liner by employing a Shore A durometer test and also evaluate its bond strength to a denture base resin by using tensile bond strength test.
Materials and Methods:
To test the hardness of samples, 50 rectangular samples (40 mm × 10 mm × 3 mm) were prepared from a heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate (Meliodent). Mollosil, a commercially available silicone resilient liner, was provided and applied on the specimens following the manufacturer’s directions. In order to test tensile bond strength, 100 cylindrical specimens (30 mm × 10 mm) were fabricated. The liners were added between specimens with the thicknesses of 3 mm. The specimens were divided into 5 groups (n=10) and immersed in distilled water, heptane, citric acid, and 50% ethanol. For each test, we used 10 specimens as a baseline measurement; control group. All specimens were kept in dispersed containers at 37ºC for 12 days and all solutions were changed every day. The hardness was verified using a Shore A durometer and the tensile bond strength was examined by an Instron testing machine at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min. The records were analyzed employing one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD, and LSD tests.
Results:
The mean tensile bond strength ± standard deviation (SD) for Mollosil was as follows for each group: 3.1 ± 0.4 (water), 1.8 ± 0.4 (citric acid), 3.0 ± 0.4 (heptane), 1.2 ± 0.3 (50% ethanol), and 3.8 ± 0.4 (control). The hardness values for each group were: 28.7 ± 2.11 (water), 33.2 ± 2.82 (citric acid), 39.2 ± 4.8 (heptane), 32.3 ± 3.56 (50% ethanol) and 22.2 ± 2.08 (control). Mean values for hardness indicated that all of the food simulating agents significantly increased hardness of the Mollosil soft liner compared to the control group (p<0.05). The results of tensile bond strength depicted that water and FSA decreased the bond strength of the soft liner -denture base resin compared to the control group and it was statistically significant (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
The food simulating agents could influence the mechanical properties of silicone soft liners; hence, clinicians should inform their patients concerning their possible adverse effects and complications.
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Reference57 articles.
1. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert S, Jacob R, Fenton A, Mericske-Stern R.
Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients Complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12th ed.
St Louis: Mosby 2004.
2. León BL, Del Bel Cury AA, Rodrigues Garcia RC.
Water sorption, solubility, and tensile bond strength of resilient denture lining materials polymerized by different methods after thermal cycling.
J Prosthet Dent
2005;
93
(3)
: 282-7.
3. Maeda T, Hong G, Sadamori S, Hamada T, Akagawa Y.
Durability of peel bond of resilient denture liners to acrylic denture base resin.
J Prosthodont Res
2012;
56
(2)
: 136-41.
4. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL.
Craig RGRdm Craig's restorative dental materials. 12th ed.
St. Louis, Mo.; London: Mosby Elsevier 2006.
5. Wright PS.
The success and failure of denture soft-lining materials in clinical use.
J Dent
1984;
12
(4)
: 319-27.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献