Resilient Denture Liners Research Articles

The compatibility of denture cleansers and resilient liners

Purpose:Difficulty in cleaning resilient denture liners remains a material disadvantage. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of denture cleansers on hardness of resilient liner materials.Materials and Methods:Three resilient liners, Luci Sof® (Dentsply), Molloplast-B® (Dentax), and Sofreliner® (Tokuyama), and two denture cleansers, Efferdent® (Warner-Lamber), and 0.5% alkaline hypochlorite preparation were used. Twenty specimens of each material were prepared, measuring 25X15X3mm. Two denture cleansing approaches were used: 1) alkaline hypochlorite, for 20 minutes; 2) alkaline peroxide, for 30 minutes. This procedure was repeated 8 times a day, during 90 days. The specimens were evaluated before and after 360 and 720 cycles, to simulate 1 and 2 years of clinical cleaning procedures, respectively. The Shore A hardness was evaluated in a durometer (Teclock GS-709A), with a penetrating load of 10N for 1 second. Any macroscopic changes, such as loss of color or alteration in surface texture were recorded by one observer. All numeric data were subject to ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Tukey's test (α= 0.05).Results:All materials were significantly different, independently to time and treatment. Initially, Luci Sof® and Sofreliner® immersed in either hypochlorite or peroxide increased the hardness mean values significantly. These hardness mean values decreased significantly after 720 cycles. Molloplast-B® showed no significant difference after the treatments, in any time.Conclusions:Denture cleansers had no effect on hardness of the resilient denture liners evaluated after 2 years of in vivo simulated conditions of hygiene. Sofreliner® was the smoothest material before and after all treatments.

Manufacturing hollow obturator with resilient denture liner on post hemimaxillectomy

A resilient denture liner is placed in the part of the hollow obturator base that contacts to post hemimaxillectomy mucosa. Replacing the resilient denture liner can makes the hollow obturator has an intimate contact with the mucosa, so it can prevents the mouth liquid enter to the cavum nasi and sinus, also eliminates painful because of using the hollow obturator. Resilient denture liner is a soft and resilient material that applied to the fitting surface of a denture in order to allow a more distribution of load. A case was reported about using the hollow obturator with resilient denture liner on post hemimaxillectomy to overcome these problems.

The evaluation of microleakage and bond strength of a silicone-based resilient liner following denture base surface pretreatment

The failure of adhesion between a silicone-based resilient liner and a denture base is a significant clinical problem. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of denture base resin surface pretreatments with different chemical etchants preceding the silicone-based resilient liner application on microleakage and bond strength. The initial effects of chemical etchants on the denture base resin in terms of microstructural changes and flexural strength were also examined. Forty-two polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture base resin (Meliodent) specimens consisting of 2 plates measuring 30 x 30 x 2 mm were prepared and divided into 7 groups (n = 6). Specimen groups were treated by immersion in acetone for 30 (A30) or 45 (A45) seconds, methyl methacrylate monomer for 180 (M180) seconds, and methylene chloride for 5 (MC5), 15 (MC15) or 30 (MC30) seconds. Group C had no surface treatment and served as the control. Subsequently, an adhesive (Mollosil) and a silicone-based resilient denture liner (Mollosil) were applied to the treated surfaces, and all specimens were immersed in the radiotracer solution (thalium-201 chloride) for 24 hours. Tracer activity (x-ray counts), as a parameter of microleakage, was measured using a gamma camera. For bond-strength measurement, 84 rectangular PMMA specimens (10 x 10 x 40 mm) were surface-smoothed for bonding and treated with the different chemical etchants using the same previously described group configurations. The adhesive and the silicone-based denture liner were applied to the treated surfaces. Tensile bond-strength (MPa) was measured in a universal testing machine. Flexural strength measurement was performed with 49 PMMA specimens (65 x 10 x 3.3 mm according to ISO standard 1567) in 7 groups (n = 7), with 1 flat surface of each treated with 1 of the chemical etchants preceding adhesive application. The flexural strength (MPa) was measured using a 3-point bending test in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey HSD test (alpha = .05). Significant differences were found between the groups in terms of microleakage (P < .0001). The lowest microleakage was observed in group M180 (30,000 x-ray counts) and the highest in the control group (44,000 x-ray counts). The mean bond strength to PMMA resin ranged from 1.44 to 2.22 MPa. All treated specimens showed significantly higher bond strength than controls (P < .01). The flexural strength values all significantly differed (P < .05). All experimental specimens that had chemical surface treatments showed lower flexural strength than controls (P < .05). Treating the denture base resin surface with chemical etchants increased the bond strength of silicone-based resilient denture liner to denture base and decreased the microleakage between the 2 materials. Considering the results of both tests together, the use of methyl methacrylate monomer for 180 seconds was found to be the most effective chemical treatment.

Compliance of Resilient Denture Liners Immersed in Effervescent Denture Cleansers

Six resilient denture liners (RDL) were exposed to two immersion effervescent denture cleansers to evaluate change in compliance over a simulated 1 year time interval. Ten samples of each material, Molloplast B, Mollosil, MPDS-SL, Permasoft, Softline, and Sofreliner were exposed to either Fixodent or Efferdent denture cleanser. A cyclic load was applied in a squarewave fashion to derive a load displacement curve to measure compliance at 0, 7, 30, 180, and 360 simulated days. All 12 of the material/cleanser combinations demonstrated a significant change in compliance at each time interval relative to baseline. Mollosil had the greatest increase in flexibility from baseline, and MPDS-SL had the smallest increase in flexibility. In general, chairside materials demonstrated greater change in compliance from baseline compared to laboratory materials. Materials subjected to Fixodent cleanser, when averaged over time, were significantly more flexible than materials exposed to Efferdent cleanser. Exposure of resilient soft liners to two common cleansers resulted in a significant increase in flexibility. This change in flexibility depended slightly, though significantly, on the type of cleanser, and appeared to be more significant with time. In general, chairside materials seemed to change more than laboratory-processed liners. The exception was Permasoft that was fabricated as a laboratory material but behaved like a chairside material. The initiator of the polymerization reaction rather than the mode of polymerization may be more important in predicting a change in the flexibility of RDLs. Constituents within the oral environment may be more responsible for changes in RDL flexibility than denture cleansers.

Mechanical Properties and Bond Strength of Silicone-based Resilient Denture Liners

To evaluate the ease of manipulation and durability of 11 commercially available silicone-based resilient denture liners, extrusion force, hardness, weight change, and bond strength were determined. Extrusion force from the cartridge of each material ranged from 0.25 to 1.26 MPa at an extrusion rate of 1 cm/min. Durometer hardness, after set materials were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for one day, ranged from A5.9 to A47.7, and after four weeks their values increased by 4.0 to 275%. Bond strength ranged from 1.01 to 2.88 MPa after set materials were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for one day, but decreased to 0.59 to 1.99 MPa after 10,000 thermal cycles. These results suggested that except for one material, the rest of the evaluated materials exhibited good handling properties--for example, mixing and spreading of material can be done easily. However, some materials exhibited inadequate durability for clinical service, because hardness increased during storage and/or bond strength decreased after thermal cycling.

Evaluation of varying amounts of thermal cycling on bond strength and permanent deformation of two resilient denture liners

Two problems found in prostheses with resilient liners are bond failure to the acrylic resin base and increased permanent deformation due to material aging. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of varying amounts of thermal cycling on bond strength and permanent deformation of 2 resilient denture liners bonded to an acrylic resin base. Plasticized acrylic resin (PermaSoft) or silicone (Softliner) resilient lining materials were processed to a heat-polymerized acrylic resin (QC-20). One hundred rectangular specimens (10 x 10-mm 2 cross-sectional area) and 100 cylindrically-shaped specimens (12.7-mm diameter x 19.0-mm height) for each liner/resin combination were used for the tensile and deformation tests, respectively. Specimen shape and liner thickness were standardized. Specimens were divided into 9 test groups (n=10) and were thermal cycled for 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, and 4000 cycles. Control specimens (n=10) were stored for 24 hours in water at 37 degrees C. Mean bond strength, expressed as stress at failure (MPa), was determined with a tensile test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Analysis of failure mode, expressed as a percent (%), was recorded as either cohesive, adhesive, or both, after observation. Permanent deformation, expressed as a percent (%), was determined using ADA specification no. 18. Data from both tests were examined with a 2-way analysis of variance and a Tukey test (alpha=.05). For the tensile test, Softliner specimens submitted to different thermal cycling regimens demonstrated no significantly different bond strength values from the control; however, there was a significant difference between the PermaSoft control group (0.47 +/- 0.09 MPa [mean +/- SD]) and the 500 cycle group (0.46 +/- 0.07 MPa) compared to the 4000 cycle group (0.70 +/- 0.20 MPa) ( P <.05). With regard to failure type, the Softliner groups presented adhesive failure (100%) regardless of specimen treatment. PermaSoft groups presented adhesive (53%), cohesive (12%), or a combined mode of failure (35%). For the deformation test, there was no significant difference among the Softliner specimens. However, a significant difference was observed between control and PermaSoft specimens after 1500 or more cycles (1.88% +/- 0.24%) ( P <.05). This in vitro study indicated that bond strength and permanent deformation of the 2 resilient denture liners tested varied according to their chemical composition.

Randomized controlled clinical trial on satisfaction with resilient denture liners among edentulous patients

Purpose The purpose of this study was to measure patients' satisfaction and their preference between mandibular dentures with permanent silicone-based resilient denture liner (SR) and conventional heat-activated acrylic resin (AR), both opposed by acrylic resin-based maxillary complete dentures. Materials and Methods Twenty-eight edentulous patients who had fulfilled selection criteria and provided informed consent were enrolled in this trial. Subjects were allocated randomly to either arm of cross-over groups (AR-SR/SR-AR), stratified by gender, using a random permuted block within the strata method. The AR-SR group received AR denture treatment followed by SR denture treatment. The SR-AR group received treatment in the reverse sequence. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured on 100-mm VAS, analyzed by two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparison as a post hoc test. The secondary outcome was patients' preference, evaluated by chi-square goodness-of-fit test. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results Twenty-five subjects were enrolled in the analysis. There were no significant differences between AR and SR dentures 1, 2, and 3 months after the completion of control. Eighteen of 25 patients preferred SR dentures. Conclusion Although there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction ratings between the two types of dentures, a significant majority of patients preferred those with a resilient denture liner.— Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.

Setting Characteristics of Silicone-based Resilient Denture Liners

The aim of this study was to investigate the setting characteristics of seven silicone-based resilient denture liners during setting. Maximum extrusion force--at the flow rate of 1 cm/min--ranged from 0.183 to 1.26 MPa. Working time and setting time ranged from 2.0 to 5.0 minutes and 1.9 to 6.8 minutes respectively. Consistency as described in JIS T6519-2000 was 32.4 to 46.5 mm. As normal load of 1 kgf was applied to a specimen held between two glass plates after mixing, the time at which film thickness reached up to 1 mm was 4.0 to 13.0 minutes at 23 degrees C and 2.2 to 5.5 minutes at 37 degrees C. These results suggested that the reaction rate of materials used in this study differed from one brand to another. Against this backdrop of differing reaction rates amongst brands, it is therefore vital that a denture liner material's setting characteristics be carefully considered whenever it is used in clinical dentistry to prevent any undesirable or unexpected results and outcome.

Effect of a denture cleanser on weight, surface roughness, and tensile bond strength of two resilient denture liners

Statement of problem Denture cleansers used in clinical practice can damage resilient denture lining materials. Purpose This study evaluated the effects of a denture cleanser on weight change, roughness, and tensile bond strength on 2 denture resilient lining materials. Material and methods Forty specimens of microwave acrylic resin (Onda-Cryl), 30 mm in diameter and 4 mm thick, were prepared to verify weight change and surface roughness. The specimens were divided into 4 groups consisting of 10 specimens each, relined with a resilient liner (Coe Soft or Dentusoft), and treated (Polident or tap water). To evaluate tensile bond strength, 12 specimens were used for each group. All specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 15 days, immersed once a day in Polident or tap water, and evaluated at 0 hours and after 24 hours and 7 and 15 days. Roughness was evaluated by use of a profilometer. Weight changes were recorded in milligrams and expressed as the percentage of weight difference between the periods of evaluation. Tensile bond strength was determined with a universal testing machine. The specimens were placed under tension until failure by a cross-speed of 5 mm/min with a 500 Kg load cell. The type of failure was determined by use of stereoscopic microscopy at original magnification ×8. The data were submitted to analysis of variance and compared by Tukey’s test (α=.05). Results Specimens immersed in Polident showed higher and significant ( P<.05) weight changes (%) than those immersed in water between 24 hours and 7 days (Coe Soft-Polident: 0.48 ± 0.09; Coe Soft-water: 0.28 ± 0.09; Dentusoft-Polident: 0.44 ± 0.16; Dentusoft-water: 0.22 ± 0.15) and between 7 and 15 days (Coe Soft-Polident: 0.08 ± 0.04; Coe Soft-water: −0.17 ± 0.05; Dentusoft-Polident: 0.01 ± 0.04; Dentusoft-water: − 0.24 ± 0.03). There was significant difference ( P<.05) in roughness (in micrometers), between treatments after 7 days (Coe Soft-water: 4.07 ± 0.22; Coe Soft-Polident: 3.36 ± 0.52; Dentusoft-water: 3.68 ± 0.72; Dentusoft-Polident: 3.26 ± 0.41) and 15 days (Coe Soft-water: 4.88 ± 0.29; Coe Soft-Polident:3.53 ± 0.61; Dentusoft-water: 4.42 ± 1.12; Dentusoft-Polident: 3.68 ± 0.37). Tensile bond strength was highest ( P<.05) after 15 days (Coe Soft-water: 5.19 ± 0.93; Coe Soft-Polident: 4.40 ± 0.38; Dentusoft-water: 4.42 ± 1.15; Dentusoft-Polident: 4.84 ± 1.14). Most failures were cohesive (Coe Soft: 76.04% and Dentusoft: 82.29%). Conclusion Within the limitations of this in vitro study, specimens immersed in Polident demonstrated increased weight changes of resilient liners when compared with tap water, but surface roughness and tensile bond strength were unaffected.

Effect of thermocycling on tensile bond strength of six silicone-based, resilient denture liners

Statement of Problem. Adhesion failure between silicone resilient denture lining materials and denture base resin is commonly encountered in clinical practice. Adhesion failure results in localized unhygienic conditions at the debonded regions and often causes functional failure of the prosthesis. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of thermocycling on the tensile bond strength of 6 soft lining materials. Material and Methods. Six commonly used silicone-based resilient denture liners (Ufigel C, Ufigel P, Mollosil, Molloplast B, Permafix, and Permaflex) were chosen for the investigation. The bond strength was determined, in tension, after processing to PMMA. The resilient denture liners for each group (n = 24) were 10 × 10 × 3 mm and were processed between 2 polymethyl methacrylate specimens according to manufacturer's instructions. Two PMMA specimens were prepared by investing brass dies with a 3-mm-thick spacer in a denture flask. Specimens were made by processing the resilient denture liners against the polymerized PMMA block. After polymerization, the brass spacer was removed from the mold, the 2 PMMA resin specimens were trimmed, and the surfaces to be bonded were smoothed. The PMMA block was placed back into the molds and the resilient denture liners were packed into the space made by brass spacer, trial packed, and polymerized according to the manufacturer's instructions. Half of the specimens for each group were stored in water for 24 hours, and the other half were thermocycled (5000 cycles) between baths of 5° and 55°C. All specimens were placed under tension until failure in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The maximum tensile stress before failure and mode of failure were recorded. The mode of failure was characterized as cohesive, adhesive, or mixed mode, depending on whether the fracture surface was in the soft liner only, at the denture base-soft liner interface only, or in both. Failure strength was recorded in kg/cm2. Results were tested by multiple analysis of variance (ANOVA) for mode of failure (adhesive, cohesive, and mix), 2-way ANOVA (storage-products), and 1-way ANOVA (storage-products interaction, before and after thermocycling). Duncan's test was used to determine whether significant changes in the tensile bond properties of the materials occurred during thermocycling. Results. Varying degrees of bond strengths were found for soft lining materials and were significantly different (P<.05). Results of this study also indicated that the bond strengths of soft lining materials had significantly decreased after thermocycling except Ufigel C and Mollosil. Conclusions. Because the adequate adhesive value for soft lining materials is given 4.5 kg/cm2, all of the materials were acceptable for clinical use. (J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:303-10.)

In vitro hardness, water sorption, and resin solubility of laboratory-processed and autopolymerized long-term resilient denture liners over one year of water storage

Statement of Problem. The clinical properties of resilient denture liners may be influenced by the method by which they are polymerized. Purpose. This in vitro study investigated material property changes of 2 new resilient denture lining materials that represent 2 different curing modes: autopolymerization and conventional laboratory processing. Material and Methods. Two silicone-based liner products were tested; one was allowed to autopolymerize (Tokuyama Soft Relining Paste), and the other was laboratory processed (Luci-Sof). Ninety-six disk-shaped specimens (31 × 10 mm) were fabricated in aluminum ring molds for hardness testing. Sixty bar-shaped specimens (44 × 8.5 × 1.2 mm) were fabricated in aluminum molds for water sorption and resin solubility testing. Shore A hardness was determined directly after specimen fabrication and after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year of water storage at 37°C. Water sorption and resin solubility were determined at the same time intervals. Analysis of variance and appropriate t tests were used to determine the effect of immersion duration both within and between the products tested. All statistical testing was performed at α=.05. Results. The hardness values of the laboratory-processed material were consistently greater than those of the autopolymerized material. After 1 week of water storage, the hardness of the autopolymerized specimens stabilized, whereas the hardness of the laboratory-processed specimens increased with immersion duration. Water sorption values for the 2 test products were similar after 6 months and after 1 year of water storage. At 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year, significantly lower resin solubility (P<.05) was recorded for the autopolymerized specimens compared with their laboratory-processed counterparts. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the laboratory-processed material was harder than the autopolymerized product and demonstrated greater resin solubility over time. The latter result was not expected. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:139-44.)

Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the gap width between a denture base resin and two long-term, resilient denture liners

Statement of Problem. The junction between a long-term, resilient denture liner and the denture base is difficult to finish and polish due to differences in the hardness of the materials. Gaps tend to form during finishing and polishing procedures. Purpose. This study measured the junctional gap between 2 long-term, resilient denture liners and a denture base material after different finishing and polishing procedures were performed. The surface smoothness of the 2 liner materials also was evaluated Material and Methods. Molloplast-B and an experimental, heat-polymerized methyl siloxane-resin-based denture liner were processed (according to the manufacturer's instructions) against Lucitone 199 acrylic resin. Control specimens (n = 20) were 2 mm thick and flat. Experimental specimens (n = 64) were fabricated with a raised center section: a 3- × 5- × 15-mm half-cylindrical ridge with a junction at the top of the cylinder between the liner material and acrylic resin. The specimens were finished with 1 of 6 types of burs and polished with different combinations of rubber-impregnated acrylic polishers, pumice, and tin oxide. The finished specimens were examined and photographed with a scanning electron microscope, and the largest gap along the liner/denture base junction on each specimen was measured. Three-way analysis of variance without replication (P<.05) and post-hoc t tests were used to analyze the data and compare groups. Results. Averaged across finishing and polishing techniques, a larger gap was recorded for the experimental liner material (22 μm) than for Molloplast-B (14 μm) (P<.00005). Qualitative evaluation suggested that the experimental liner material polished better than Molloplast-B. The smoothest surfaces were obtained when specimens were finished with fine-tooth cross-cut carbide burs and polished with both pumice and tin oxide. A comparison between polished and unpolished specimens, averaged over materials and finishing techniques, revealed that polishing reduced gap size (P=.015). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the 2 denture liners tested behaved similarly. The results suggest that the size of the gap at the liner/denture base junction may be affected by finishing and polishing techniques and vary among materials. (J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:311-8.)

Effect of viscoelastic properties of resilient denture liners on pressures under dentures.

In order to evaluate the influence of viscoelastic properties of resilient denture liners on the pressures under dentures, a series of creep and stress relaxation tests were carried out using a simplified mandibular edentulous model and denture model. Two diaphragm pressure sensors were attached to the edentulous model so that they contacted the residual ridge and the buccal slope. The results may be summarized as follows: (i) The use of resilient denture liners is effective for stress relief under dentures. (ii) The thickness increase of each denture liners causes the effect of stress relaxation. (iii) The material exhibited viscoelastic behaviour after applying the stress and has the ability to distribute stress or stress relaxation. It is important to understand the viscoelastic behaviours of each resilient denture liner and choose the material according to the clinical situation. The information obtained should be useful to clinicians when they select materials for their patients.

Effect of viscoelastic properties of resilient denture liners on pressures under dentures

In order to evaluate the influence of viscoelastic properties of resilient denture liners on the pressures under dentures, a series of creep and stress relaxation tests were carried out using a simplified mandibular edentulous model and denture model. Two diaphragm pressure sensors were attached to the edentulous model so that they contacted the residual ridge and the buccal slope. The results may be summarized as follows: (i) The use of resilient denture liners is effective for stress relief under dentures. (ii) The thickness increase of each denture liners causes the effect of stress relaxation. (iii) The material exhibited viscoelastic behaviour after applying the stress and has the ability to distribute stress or stress relaxation. It is important to understand the viscoelastic behaviours of each resilient denture liner and choose the material according to the clinical situation. The information obtained should be useful to clinicians when they select materials for their patients.

Development of a nondestructive compliance test for resilient denture liners.

Resilient denture liners are prescribed for patients who cannot adjust to hard-based dentures because of a thin mucosa or severe alveolar ridge resorption. A nondestructive test to evaluate compliance of new soft liner materials will be useful in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a nondestructive compliance testing technique designed to characterize long-term, silicone-based resilient denture liner materials. Samples of thicknesses of 1.1, 2.2, 3.3, and 4.4 mm of 2 materials (MPDS-SL [Lai Laboratories, Inc, Burnsville, MN] and Molloplast-B [Buffalo Dental, New York, NY]) were assessed for compliance using a closed-loop servohydraulic testing system, applying a 3 lb force following a squarewave pattern; force and position values were recorded using a storage oscilloscope. The oscilloscope values were analyzed using computer software to determine compliance values. The effect of material thickness was examined by testing wedges of the 2 materials. The testing technique used showed that differing thicknesses had significantly different compliance values (p <.0001). In the materials used to evaluate the technique, MPDS-SL behaved more elastically than did Molloplast-B (p <.0001). Material thicknesses beyond 2.2 mm did not increase compliance, although MPDS-SL had a steeper thickness-compliance curve than Molloplast-B. The method used to test compliance proved to be sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between 2 materials and between varying thicknesses. The sensitivity and nondestructive nature of this test show its suitability for clinical evaluation of resilient denture liners.

Development of a nondestructive compliance test for resilient denture liners

Development of a nondestructive compliance test for resilient denture liners

Effect of denture cleansers, surface finish, and temperature on Molloplast B resilient liner color, hardness, and texture

The purpose of this study was to compare color, texture, and Shore A hardness of a resilient silicone denture liner with as-polymerized, roughened, or pumiced surfaces after treatment with perborate-, persulfate-, or hypochlorite-containing denture cleansers at 25 degrees or 55 degrees. Fifty-eight specimens that each exhibited an as-polymerized, a roughened, and a pumiced area were exposed to 5 different commercially available perborate-, persulfate-, or hypochlorite-containing denture cleansers at 25 degrees or 55 degrees continuously for 4 (1/2) months. The solutions were replaced twice a day. Control specimens were soaked in water with no cleanser. Before and after the 4 (1/2) -month cleaning regimen, the color, hardness, and texture of resilient liner surfaces were evaluated using a color densitometer, a Shore A durometer (Shore Instrument & Mfg Co, Freeport, NY), and a surface profilometer, respectively. Differences among groups after the cleanser treatment were determined using a repeated measures analysis of variance (alpha = 0.05) and a Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test. Roughened specimen surfaces after 25 degrees or 55 degrees cleanser treatment exhibited significant color loss with some perborate-containing cleansers compared with the control. Roughened specimens treated at 55 degrees with perborate-containing cleansers also exhibited significantly greater color loss than those treated with the persulfate-containing cleanser. With roughened surfaces, significantly greater hardness was found with some perborate-containing cleanser compared with a hypochlorite-containing cleanser after treatment at 25 degrees. No differences were observed in surface texture based upon cleanser treatment. After silicone resilient denture liner treatment with certain perborate-containing denture cleansers, a greater amount of components could leach from the liner leading to a loss of color if the liner surface is rough.

電解水の弾性裏装材に対する影響

In this study, we investigated if electrolyzed water (strong acid electrolyzed water and strong alkaline electrolyzed water) could be applied to plaque control of resilient denture liners.Five commercially available resilient denture liners were immersed in electrolyzed water or distilled water for two weeks. Rubber hardness, surface roughness, color, and weight were measured before immersion and at 1 and 2 weeks after immersion.The strong acid electrolyzed water changed the rubber-hardness-acrylic-type and fluorine-type resilient denture liners color of acrylic type and polyorefine type resilient denture liners, compared with distilled water. However, surface roughness and weight of these resilient denture liners were not affected by immersion in the electrolyzed water. Other resilient denture liners were not affected by immersion into the electrolyzed water, for all experimental items.These results suggest that there were few effects on the property of resilient denture liners, and that electrolyzed water can be applied for cleaning of resilient denture liners.

Simplified methods for fabricating tissue-supported implant-retained overdentures with retention from a resilient liner

Resilient denture liner materials can be useful for tissue-supported implant-retained overdentures. They allow physiologic movement of the denture toward the tissues. This article presents a technique that offers several advantages over other methods of fabricating the overdenture with a resilient liner, and of transferring the superstructure: the acrylic resin base and the heat-cured resilient liner material are cured simultaneously; superstructure blockout is performed in the laboratory instead of in the mouth, where blockout is difficult; and direct transfer of the superstructure bar is more accurate and eliminates possible fracture of the duplicated superstructure if formed in die stone. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:242-5.)

Overdenture retention of four resilient liners over an implant bar

Statement of problem. Resilient denture liners offer an alternative method of designing implant-retained overdentures. Space is provided in the overdenture to envelop the implant bar with a resilient liner to be applied chairside or processed in the laboratory. The degree of retention may vary and these materials change over time. Purpose. This study evaluated the retention on an implant/bar prosthesis with overdentures lined with 4 resilient denture lining materials, after cyclic insertion and removal over a simulated 1.5-year period. Material and methods. Four implants were placed in a mandibular edentulous cast and a gold bar superstructure was made. Overdentures were processed in Lucitone-199 and Tokuyama, Luci-Sof, Molloplast-B, and PermaSoft (with and without sealer) lining materials, cured according to manufacturers’ instructions. Each of 5 overdentures contained each liner and were cycled 2740 times (simulating 1.5 years of service at 5 insertions daily) in 37°C water in an Instron at 20 cm/min. Insertion and retention force were measured. Results. The 3 silicone rubber liners were 3 to 5 times more retentive than the plasticized acrylic liner initially. After cycling, Tokuyama soft liner (autopolymerized silicone) gained 14% retention, Luci-Sof (heat-cured silicone) gained 8%, Molloplast-B (heat-cured silicone) lost 12%, whereas PermaSoft (autopolymerized plasticized acrylic) with sealer lost 43%, and without sealer lost 60%. PermaSoft lining material also chafed and crumbled after cycling and was significantly less retentive in most statistical comparisons. Conclusions. All the silicone-based resilient liners retained the overdentures well. The plasticized acrylic was less retentive initially, and lost significant retention after 2740 cycles, compared with silicone-based resilient liners. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:568-73.)