Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
5-Year IF – 2.0, IF – 1.9, JCI (2024) – 0.43
Scopus CiteScore – 4.3
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598, H-index: 49 (SJR)
ICV – 161.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2014, vol. 23, nr 4, July-August, p. 621–625

Publication type: original article

Language: English

The Adhesion of Modern Soft Relining Materials to Acrylic Dentures

Włodzimierz Więckiewicz1,A,B,E,F, Jacek Kasperski2,A,B,C, Mieszko Więckiewicz3,C,D,E,F, Marta Miernik1,C,D,E,F, Wojciech Król4,A,C,D,F

1 Department of Dental Prosthetics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Department of Dental Prosthetics in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland

3 Division of Dental Materials, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

4 Department of Microbiology and Immunology in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland

Abstract

Background. . Silicone-based liners are widespread materials in prosthetic dentistry. Their mechanical properties have to meet several key requirements such as adequate adhesion to denture base polymers in order to provide right function of masticatory system and oral hygiene.
Objectives. . The aim of this paper was to evaluate and compare tensile and shear bond strengths values of three modern autopolimeryzed silicone relining materials bonded to acrylic plates.
Material and Methods. . Three silicone-based soft relining materials were investigated in this study (A-Soft Line 30, Bosworth Dentusil and Elite Super Soft). A total of 78 specimens were prepared: 13 of each material (total: 39) for testing tensile bond strength and 13 of each material for testing shear bond strength (total: 39). The obtained data were analyzed statistically.
Results. . The average tensile bond strength results were 0.86 MPa for Bosworth Dentusil, 1.00 MPa for Elite Super Soft and 1.25 MPa for A-Soft Line 30. The silicone-based relining materials had different average values of shear bond strength: 0.67 MPa Elite Super Soft; 1.32 MPa A-Soft Line 30 and 1.57 MPa Bosworth Dentusil.
Conclusion. . As the result of the study it can be concluded that all tested materials have acceptable adhesion values to acrylic resin. According to tensile and shear bond strengths tests the best adhesive properties has A-Soft Line 30.

Key words

soft relining materials, silicone elastomers, adhesion, acrylic dentures.

References (20)

  1. Braden M, Wright PS, Parker S: Soft lining materials – a review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1995, 3, 4, 163–174.
  2. Qudah S, Harrison A, Huggett R: Soft lining materials in prosthetic dentistry: A review. Int J Prosthodont 1990, 3, 5, 477–483.
  3. Santawisuk W, Kanchanavasita W, Sirisinha C, Harnirattisai C: Dynamic viscoelastic properties of experimental silicone soft lining materials. Dent Mater J 2010, 29, 4, 454–460.
  4. Kasuga Y, Takahashi H, Akiba N, Minakuchi S, Matsushita N, Hashimoto M: Basic evaluation on physical properties of experimental fluorinated soft lining materials. Dent Mater J 2011, 30, 1, 45–51.
  5. Mante FK, Mante MO, Petropolous VC: In Vitro Changes in Hardness of Sealed Resilient Lining Materials on Immersion in Various Fluids. J Prosthodont 2008, 17, 5, 384–391.
  6. Ergun G, Nagas IC: Color stability of silicone or acrylic denture liners: An in vitro investigation. Eur J Dent 2007, 1, 3, 2007, 144–151.
  7. Wright PS: Characterization of the rupture properties of denture soft lining materials. J Dent Res 1980, 59, 3, 614–624.
  8. Dinckal Yanikoglu N, Denizoglu S: An Investigation of the Tear Energy of Five Soft Lining Materials. Dent Mater J 2003, 22, 4, 444–451.
  9. Dahl JE, Frangou-Polyzois MJ, Polyzois GL: In vitro biocompatibility of denture relining materials. Gerodontology 2006, 23, 1, 17–22.
  10. Murata H, Hamada T, Sadamori S: Relationship between viscoelastic properties of soft denture liners and clinical efficacy. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2008, 44, 2, 128–132.
  11. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A, Craig RG: Sorption and solubility of 12 soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994, 72, 4, 393–398.
  12. El-Hadary A, Drummond JL: Comparative study of water sorption, solubility, and tensile bond strenght of two lining materials. J Prosthet Dent 2000, 83, 3, 356–361.
  13. Murata H., Taguchi N, Hamada T, Mccabe JF: Dynamic viscoelastic properties and the age changes of long-term soft denture liners. Biomaterials 2000, 21, 14, 1421–1427.
  14. Elias CN, Henriques FQ: Effect of thermocycling on the tensile and shear bond strengths of three soft liners to a denture base resin. J Appl Oral Sci 2007, 15, 1, 18–23.
  15. Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE: Evaluation of bond strength of soft relining materials to denture base polymers. Dent Mater 2007, 23, 11, 1373–1381.
  16. Mese A, Güzel KG, Uysal E: Effect of storage duration on tensile bond strength of acrylic or silicone-based soft denture liners to a processed denture base polymer. Acta Odontol Scand 2005, 63, 1, 31–35.
  17. Wright PS: A three year longitudinal study of denture soft lining materials in clinical use. Clin Mater 1986, 1, 281–291.
  18. Al-Athel M, Jagger R, Jagger D: Effect of ageing on the bond strength of a permanent denture soft lining material. J Oral Rehabil 2002, 29, 10, 992–996.
  19. Yanikoglu N, Denizoglu S: The effect of different solutions on the bond strength of soft lining materials to acrylic resin. Dent Mater J 2006, 25, 1, 39–44.
  20. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A, Craig RG: Comparison of bond strength of six soft denture liners to denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent 1992, 68, 2, 368–371.
© Wroclaw Medical University