Adhesive retention of experimental fiber-reinforced composite, orthodontic acrylic resin, and aliphatic urethane acrylate to silicone elastomer for maxillofacial prostheses

WOS: 000357624000025PubMed ID: 25858221Statement of problem. A key factor of an implant-retained facial prosthesis is the success of the bonding between the substructure and the silicone elastomer. Little has been reported on the bonding of fiber reinforced composite (FRC) to silicone elastomers. Experimental FRC could be a solution for facial prostheses supported by light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate, orthodontic acrylic resin, or commercially available FRCs. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bonding of the experimental FRC, orthodontic acrylic resin, and light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate to a commercially available high-temperature vulcanizing silicone elastomer. Material and methods. Shear and 180-degree peel bond strengths of 3 different substructures (experimental FRC, orthodontic acrylic resin, light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate) (n=15) to a high-temperature vulcanizing maxillofacial silicone elastomer (M511) with a primer (G611) were assessed after 200 hours of accelerated artificial light-aging. The specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 10 mm/min. Data were collected and statistically analyzed by 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Bonferroni correction and the Dunnett post hoc test (alpha=.05). Modes of failure were visually determined and categorized as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed and were statistically analyzed with the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test (a=.05). Results. As the mean shear bond strength values were evaluated statistically, no difference was found among the experimental FRC, aliphatic urethane acrylate, and orthodontic acrylic resin subgroups (P>.05). The mean peel bond strengths of experimental fiber reinforced composite and aliphatic urethane acrylate were not found to be statistically different (P>.05). The mean value of the orthodontic acrylic resin subgroup peel bond strength was found to be statistically lower (P.05). Shear forces predominantly exhibited cohesive failure (64.4%), whereas peel forces predominantly exhibited adhesive failure (93.3%). Conclusion. The mean shear bond strengths of the experimental FRC and aliphatic urethane acrylate groups were not found to be statistically different (P>.05). The mean value of the 180-degree peel strength of the orthodontic acrylic resin group was found to be lower (P<.05).Ege University Scientific Project DepartmentEge University [2012-DIS-020]Supported by Ege University Scientific Project Department (project number: 2012-DIS-020)

EVALUATION OF THE SURFACE DETAIL REPRODUCTION OF IMPRESSION MATERIALS USED FOR OCULAR PROSTHESES

WOS: 000508954100005Objective: To evaluate the surface detail reproduction of faux types of impression materials compatible for the socket impression in the fabrication of ocular prosthesis. Material and Method: Three alginate impression materials (orthoprint(OP), Ca37(C), Ophthalmic Alginate (OA) and a polyvinyl siloxane material (Minis (P)) have been tested. A total of 40 impressions were made of stainless steel metal dies (ADA specification 19). the dies had 2 vertical and 3 horizontal lines inscribed on their superior surfaces. the measurements have been conducted on the 20-50-75 mu m horizontal lines on the surface of the impression. Surface detail reproduction was evaluated using a microscope at 80X magnification. Statistical analysis was performed (one-way ANOVA and Bon errant alpha=0.05). Results: Polyvinyl siloxane material resulted in the highest values and showed the most accurate surface at all of the 20-50-75 mu m lines; whereas, lowest values were observed with Orthoprint. Conclusion: Polyvinyl siloxane impression material showed the highest surface detail necessary for the construction of an ocular prosthesis among other impression materials tested