Article

Tensile bond strength of a soft lining with acrylic denture base resins.

Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Istanbul, Turkey.
The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry 04/1994; 2(3):123-6. pp.123-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bonding of different soft lining materials has been widely investigated, but there is little work on the effect of using different denture base resins. This study investigates the bonding of Molloplast-B (a heat-cured, silicone soft lining material) and five commercial acrylic denture base materials of different types (Pacton, Lucitone, Meliodent, Ivocap and Compresin). The lining was processed against all the resins cured and Pacton, Lucitone and Meliodent uncured. In the cured specimens, Lucitone, Meliodent and Compresin demonstrated cohesive failure, whereas Pacton and Ivocap demonstrated part-adhesive and part-cohesive failure. All three sets of uncured specimens demonstrated adhesive failure. It was concluded that pre-curing, roughening and treating with Primo adhesive gives a better bond.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
33 Views
  • Source
    Article: Evaluation of bond strength of soft relining materials to denture base polymers.
    Mustafa Murat Mutluay, I Eystein Ruyter
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the initial bonding properties of recently and previously introduced soft relining materials to denture base polymers with different polymerization techniques and different water content. The initial tensile bond strength of 10 soft liners (Mollosil Plus, Dentusil, Ufi gel Soft, GC Reline Soft, Silagum Comfort, Vertex Soft, Astron Soft, Molloplast B, Flexacryl Soft, Triad Resiline) to three denture base polymers (Paladon 65, Palapress Vario, Ivocap Plus) were assessed with a modified method. Paladon 65 specimens immersed in water for 3 months were also used to test the effect of water content of denture base polymer on bond strength results. After testing, a visual examination of the fracture surfaces and a SEM investigation of the interface structure were performed. Tensile strength of each soft liner material was also tested. Data were analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05). Significant differences were found among tensile bond strength results (P < 0.05). Vinyl poly(organosiloxane) soft liners (Mollosil Plus, Dentusil, Ufi gel Soft, GC Reline Soft, Silagum Comfort) and a plasticized PMMA soft liner (Vertex Soft) gave statistically similar bond strength results for different denture base polymers (P>0.05). For the other materials used (Astron Soft, Molloplast B, Flexacryl Soft, Triad Resiline), different denture base polymers caused significantly different results (P < 0.05). Poly(organosiloxane) based materials gave slightly higher bond strength results with water immersed specimens than with the dry specimens. A wide variety of newly formulated soft liners used in this study gave comparable or better bond strength results compared to Molloplast B.
    Dental Materials 12/2007; 23(11):1373-81. · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Article: Adhesive bond strength and compliance for denture soft lining materials.
    John F McCabe, Thomas E Carrick, Hiroshi Kamohara
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peel bond strength and tensile bond strength between three polyvinylsiloxane denture soft liners and a heat-cured acrylic resin denture base were measured using two adhesive systems. The soft lining materials differed only in regard of their filler content and compliance. The values of bond strength and mode of failure were explained in terms of the inherent strength of the bond and varying compliance and tear strength of the soft material. For tensile testing, when bond failure occurred through an adhesive debonding mechanism, materials of low compliance (stiffer materials) produced the greatest tensile bond strength. Conversely, when the same materials were subjected to peel testing a different trend emerged; the material with lowest compliance produced the lowest peel bond strength. When de-bonding occurs by tearing or snapping of the soft material, the measured value of bond strength was controlled by the tear strength of the soft material. The results could be explained by a consideration of stress concentrations at the soft-hard material interface during 180 degrees peel testing. Adhesives based on ethyl acetate solvents produced stronger bond strengths than equivalent toluene based adhesives, particularly for materials of low compliance. Bond failure for toluene based adhesives was predominantly adhesive, whereas that for ethyl acetate based adhesives was predominantly cohesive. Overall, the least resistance to peeling was exhibited by a material of low compliance (i.e. relatively stiff) bonded with a toluene based adhesive. When an ethyl acetate based adhesive was used, all materials exhibited a resistance to peeling with a predominantly cohesive mode of failure.
    Biomaterials 04/2002; 23(5):1347-52. · 7.40 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Keywords

adhesive failure
 
Bonding
 
cohesive failure
 
commercial acrylic denture base materials
 
Compresin
 
cured specimens
 
different denture base resins
 
different soft
 
different types
 
Ivocap
 
Meliodent uncured
 
Pacton
 
part-adhesive
 
part-cohesive failure
 
Primo adhesive
 
resins cured
 
silicone soft
 
study investigates
 
three sets
 
uncured specimens
 

O Kutay