scholarly journals Effect of Different Surface Treatments on The Tensile Bond Strength Between Acrylic Resin Teeth and Denture Base Material

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 142
Author(s):  
Ihab Nafea Yaseen
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Base Material ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Denture Base

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Soft Liners to an Acrylic Resin Denture Base with Various Curing Methods and Surface Treatments

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamidreza Haghi ◽  
Masoud Shiehzadeh ◽  
Jafar Gharechahi ◽  
Davood Nodehi ◽  
Asad Karazhian
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Curing Methods

The Effects of Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, and Ho:YAG Laser Surface Treatments to Acrylic Resin Denture Bases on the Tensile Bond Strength of Silicone-Based Resilient Liners

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 409-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oguzhan Gorler ◽  
Derya Ozdemir Dogan ◽  
Melih Ulgey ◽  
Aysegul Goze ◽  
Ihsan Hubbezoğlu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Laser Surface ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Ho:Yag Laser

scholarly journals Effect of Food Simulating Agents on the Hardness and Bond Strength of a Silicone Soft Liner to a Denture Base Acrylic Resin

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 402-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.A.R. Khaledi ◽  
M. Bahrani ◽  
S. Shirzadi
Keyword(s):  
Citric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Bonding Failure ◽  
Base Resin ◽  
Soft Liner ◽  
Denture Base Resin

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.

The Effect of Surface Treatments on Tensile Bond Strength between a Silicone Soft Liner and a Heat-Cured Denture Base Resin

2011 ◽  
Vol 87 (9) ◽  
pp. 951-965
Author(s):  
Koray Soygun ◽  
Giray Bolayir ◽  
Arife Dogan ◽  
Hakan Demir ◽  
Orhan Murat Dogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Base Resin ◽  
Soft Liner ◽  
Denture Base Resin ◽  
Effect Of Surface

scholarly journals The role of surface treatments on the bond between acrylic denture base and teeth

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauro Egídio Bragaglia ◽  
Luiz Henrique Maykot Prates ◽  
Maria Cristina Marino Calvo
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aluminum Oxide ◽  
Compressive Load ◽  
Base Material ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Surface Grinding ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Abrasive Stone

The aim of this study was to compare the bond strength between acrylic denture base and teeth subjected to 6 surface treatments. Ninety-six specimens were made with poly(methylmethacrylate) teeth bonded to a microwave-polymerized acrylic denture base material. The specimens were distributed into 6 groups (n=16) according to surface treatments: CT - no treatment (control); MN - methylmethacrylate monomer etching; AO - 50-µm-particle aluminum oxide air abrasion; BR - glaze removal with a round bur; ST - surface grinding with an aluminum oxide abrasive stone; group CV - cavity preparation (diatorics). The control and surface-treated groups were subjected to a compressive load at 45º angle to the long axis of the teeth. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Scheffé's test (p<0.05). Bond strength means and (SD) in kgf for groups were: CT: 18.19 (7.14), MN: 18.34 (5.28), AO: 23.82 (5.40), BR: 23.30 (4.79), ST: 25.39 (7.80) and CV: 17.48 (7.17). There was statistically significant difference (p=0.037997) only between ST and CV. In conclusion, ridge lap surface grinding with an aluminum oxide abrasive stone provided the highest bond strength, though it differed significantly only when compared to diatorics. The other surface treatments provided similar bond between the acrylic denture base and teeth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document