The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Wettability of denture relining materials under water storage over time

  • Jin, Na-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Lee, Ho-Rim (Seoul Top Dental Clinic) ;
  • Lee, Hee-Su (Department of Oral Anatomy, Dental School, Kangnung National University) ;
  • Pae, Ahran (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • Published : 2009.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. Poor wettability of denture relining materials may lead to retention problems and patient discomfort. PURPOSE. Purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate wettability of nine denture relining materials using contact angle measurements under air and water storage over time. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Nine denture relining materials were investigated in this study. Two heat-curing polymethyl-methacrylate(PMMA) denture base materials: Vertex RS, Lang, one self-curing polyethyl-methacrylate(PEMA) chairside reline resin: Rebase II, six silicone relining materials: Mucopren soft, Mucosoft, $Mollosil^{{R}}$ plus, Sofreliner Touch, GC $Reline^{TM}$ Ultrasoft, Silagum automix comfort were used in this experiment. Contact angles were measured using high-resolution drop shape analysis system(DSA 10-MK2, KRUESS, Germany) under three conditions(in air after setting, 1 hour water storage, and 24 hours water storage). Nine materials were classified into three groups according to material composition(Group 1: PMMA, Group 2: PEMA, Group 3: Silicone). Mean values of contact angles were compared using independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA, followed by a Scheffe's post hoc analysis($\alpha$=0.01). RESULTS. Contact angles of materials tested after air and water storage increased in the following order: Group 1(PMMA), Group 2(PEMA), Group 3(Silicone). Heat-cured acrylic denture base resins had more wettability than silicone relining materials. Lang had the highest wettability after 24 hours of water storage. Silicone relining materials had lower wettability due to their hydrophobicity. Wettability of all denture relining materials, except Rebase II and $Mollosil^{{R}}$ plus, increased after 24 hours of water storage. CONCLUSIONS. Conventional heat-cured resin showed the highest wettability, therefore, it can be suggested that heat-cured acrylic resin is material of choice for denture relining materials.

Keywords

References

  1. Kawano F, Tada N, Nagal K, Matsuomoto N. Influence of soft lining materials on pressure distribution. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:567-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90301-C
  2. Haywood J, Basker RM, Watson CJ, Wood DJ. A comparison of three hard chairside denture reline materials. Part I. Clinical evaluation. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2003;11:157-63.
  3. Matsumura H, Tanoue N, Kawasaki K, Atsuta M. Clinical evaluation of a chemically cured hard denture relining material. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:640-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00701.x
  4. Arima T, Murata H, Hamada T. Analysis of composition and structure of hard autopolymerizing reline resins. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:346-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00863.x
  5. Wright PS. The success and failure of denture soft-lining materials in clinical use. J Dent 1984;12:319-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(84)90090-3
  6. Barsby MJ, Braden MJ. A hydrophilic denture base resin. J Dent Res 1979;6:1581-4.
  7. Quadah S, Harrison A, Huggett R. Soft lining materials in prosthetic dentistry: A review. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:477-83.
  8. Ellis B, Lamb DJ, McDonald MP. A study of the composition and diffusion characteristics of a soft liner. J Dent 1979;7:133-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(79)90008-3
  9. Jones DW, Sutow EJ, Hall GC, Tobin WM, Graham BS. Dental soft polymers, plasticizer composite and leachability. Dent Mater 1988;4:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(88)80080-0
  10. Craig RG, Gibbons P. Properties of resilient denture liners. J Am Dent Assoc 1961;63:382-90. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1961.0218
  11. Monsenego P, Baszkin A, Costa ML, Lejoyeux J. Complete denture retention. Part II: Wettability studies on various acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:308-12.
  12. Wright PS. Soft lining materials: their status and prospects. J Dent 1976;4:247-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(76)80001-2
  13. Kwok D, Gietzelt T, Grundke K, Jacobash H, Neumann A. Contact angle measurements and contact angle interpretation. 1. Contact angle measurements by axisymmetric drop shape analysis and a goniometer sessile drop technique. Langmuir 1997;13:2880-94. https://doi.org/10.1021/la9608021
  14. Good RJ. Contact angle, wetting, and adhesion a critical review. In: Mittal KL, editor. Contact angle, wettability and adhesion. Utrecht, The Netherlands; VSP; 1993, pp. 3-36.
  15. Anusavice KJ. Phillip's science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA; Saunders; 1996, pp. 28-9.
  16. Wright PS. Composition and properties of soft lining materials for acrylic dentures. J Dent 1981;9:210-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(81)90057-9
  17. Kalachandra S, Turner DT. Water sorption of plasticized denture acrylic lining material. Dent Mater 1989;5:161-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(89)90005-5
  18. Parker S, Martin D, Braden M. Soft acrylic resin materials containing a polymerizable plasticizer I: Mechanical properties. Biomaterials 1998;19:1695-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00077-5
  19. Kazanji MNM, Watkinson AC. Influence of thickness, boxing and storage on the softness of resilient denture lining materials. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:677-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90381-2
  20. Parr GR, Rueggeberg FA. Physical-property comparison of a chairside- or laboratory-polymerized permanent soft-liner during 1 year. J Prosthodont 1999;8:92-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1999.tb00017.x
  21. Jepson NJA, McCabe JF, Storer R. The clinical serviceability of two permanent denture soft linings. Br Dent J 1994;177:11-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4808489
  22. Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH. Dental Biomaterials. Boston, Kluwer Academic; 1999, pp. 396-400.
  23. Emmer TJ Jr, Emmer TJ Sr, Vaidynathan J, Vaidynathan TK. Bond strength of permanent soft denture liners bonded to the denture base. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:595-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80311-7
  24. Boening KW, Walter MH, Schuette U. Clinical significance of surface activation of silicone impression materials. J Dent 1998;26:447-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00057-2
  25. Mandikos MN. Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Aust Dent J 1998;43:428-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb00204.x
  26. McMurry J. Fundamentals of organic chemistry. 4th ed. Pacific Grove, CA; Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.; 1998, pp. 36-45.
  27. Anusavice KJ. Phillips' science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA; Saunders; 2003, pp. 205-31.
  28. Villar A, Pesun IJ, Brosky ME, Fines C, Hodges JS, DeLong R, Lai JH. Clinical evaluation of a new resilient denture liner. part 1: Compliance and color evaluation. J Prosthodont 2003;12:82-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00043-3
  29. Veres EM, Wolfaardt JF, Becker PJ. An evaluation of the surface characteristics of a facial prosthetic elastomer. Part III: wettability and hardness. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:466-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90239-9
  30. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A III, Craig RG. Sorption and solubility of 12 soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:393-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90559-2
  31. Jones DW, Hall GC, Sutow EJ, Langman MF, Robertson KN. Chemical and molecular weight analyses of prosthodontic soft polymers. J Dent Res 1991;70:874-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345910700050201
  32. O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. Chicago; Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1997, pp. 90.
  33. Waters MG, Jagger RG, Polyzois GL. Wettability of silicone rubber maxillofacial prosthetic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:439-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)80011-0

Cited by

  1. A Comparison of the Surface Properties of CAD/CAM and Conventional Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) vol.28, pp.4, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13033
  2. Beneficial Effects of Ethyl-Cyanoacrylate Coating Against Candida Albicans Biofilm Formation vol.30, pp.3, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201901953
  3. A comparison of conventional and machinable PMMA materials for denture vol.23, pp.suppl1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1815325