• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.621-632
• /
• 2007

Statement of problem: The failure of adhesion between the resilient denture liner and the denture base is a serious problem in clinic. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of denture base resin surface pretreatments (mechanical and/or chemical) on the tensile bond strength between a resilient liner and processed denture resin. Material and method. Acrylic-based resilient liners (Soft liner; GC co., Japan & Coe-Soft; GC America Inc. USA) and silicone-based resilient liners (Mucosoft, Parkell Inc., USA & Dentusil; Bosworth co., USA) were used. Specimens in each soft lining material were divided two groups with or without mechanical pretreatment. Each denture base specimen received 1 of 4 chemical pretreatments including: (1) no treatment, (2) 30-s acetone treatment, (3) 15-s methylene chloride treatment, (4) 180-s methyl methacrylate treatment. All specimens were thermocycled and placed under tension until failure in a universal testing machine. Results: 1. Silicone-based resilient liners exhibited significantly higher tensile bond strengths than acrylic-based resilient liners (P<.05). 2. Grinding the denture base resin improved tensile bond strengths of silicone-based resilient liners, but reduced tensile bond strengths of acrylic-based resilient liners (P<.05). 3. In acrylic-based resilient liners, treating with acetone significantly increased the bond strength of Soft liner and treating with methyl methacrylate significantly increased the bond strength of Coe-Soft (P<.05). However they were not effective compared to silicone-based resilient liner. 4. In silicone-based resilient liners, treating with all chemical etchants significantly increased the bond strength of Mucosoft to denture base, and treating with methylene chloride and methyl methacrylate increased the bond strength of Dentusil to denture base (P<.05). Conclusion: Although chemical and mechanical pretreatments were not effective on tensile bond strength of acrylic-based resilent liner to denture base, treating the denture base resin surface with appropriate chemical etchants after mechanical pretreatment significantly increased the tensile bond strength of silicone-based resilient liner to denture base.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.16-19
• /
• 2011

PURPOSE. Purpose of this study was to evaluate effect of two surface treatments, sandblasting and monomer treatment, on tensile bond strength between two long term resilient liners and poly (methyl methacrylate) denture base resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two resilient liners Super-Soft and Molloplast-B were selected. Sixty acrylic resin (Trevalon) specimens with cross sectional area of $10{\times}10$ mm were prepared and divided into two groups of 30 specimens each. Each group was surface treated (n = 10) by sandblasting (250 ${\mu}$ alumina particles), monomer treatment (for 180 sec) and control (no surface treatment). Resilient liners were processed between 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) surfaces, in the dimensions of $10{\times}10{\times}3$ mm. Tensile strength was determined with Instron Universal testing machine, at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min; and the modes of failure (adhesive, cohesive or mixed) were recorded. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey HSD test (${\alpha}$= 0.05). RESULTS. Monomer pretreatment of acrylic resin produced significantly higher bond strengths when compared to sandblasting and control for both resilient liners (P < .001). Sandblasting significantly decreased the bond strength for both the liners when compared to monomer pretreatment and control (P < .001). Mean bond strength of Super-Soft lined specimens was significantly higher than Molloplast-B in various surface treatment groups (P < .05). CONCLUSION. Surface pretreatment of the acrylic resin with monomer prior to resilient liner application is an effective method to increase bond strength between the base and soft liner. Sandblasting, on the contrary, is not recommended as it weakens the bond between the two.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.290-295
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of paracetic acid (PAA) and ozone disinfection on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of silicone-based resilient liners to acrylic resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred and twenty dumbbell shaped heat-polymerized acrylic resins were prepared. From the mid segment of the specimens, 3 mm of acrylic were grinded off and separated parts were reattached by resilient liners. The specimens were divided into 2 control (control1, control7) and 4 test groups of PAA and ozone disinfection (PAA1, PAA7, ozone1 and ozone7; n=10). While control groups were immersed in distilled water for 10 min (control1) and 7 days (control7), test groups were subjected to PAA (16 g/L) or ozone rich water (4 mg/L) for 1 cycle (10 min for PAA and 60 min for ozone) per day for 7 days prior to tensile tests. Measurements of the TBS were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. RESULTS. Adhesive strength of Mollosil decreased significantly by application of ozone disinfection. PAA disinfection had no negative effect on the TBS values of Mollosil and Molloplast B to acrylic resin. Single application of ozone disinfection did not have any negative effect on TBS values of Molloplast B, but prolonged exposure to ozone decreased its adhesive strength. CONCLUSION. The adhesion of resilient liners to acrylic was not adversely affected by PAA disinfection. Immersion in ozonated water significantly decreased TBS of Mollosil. Prolonged exposure to ozone negatively affects adhesion of Molloplast B to denture base materials.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.109-114
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of denture cleansers on Candida albicans biofilm formation over resilient liners and to evaluate compatibility between resilient liners and denture cleansers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Acrylic resin (Lucitone 199$^{(R)}$) and 3 resilient liners (COE-SOFT$^{TM}$, GC RELINE$^{TM}$ and SOFRELINER TOUGH TOUGH$^{(R)}$) were incubated in denture cleansers (Polident$^{(R)}$ and Cleadent$^{(R)}$) for 8 hours a day and in unstimulated saliva for 16 hours a day (n=25/gp) for 60 days. Two-way and three-way repeated measures ANOVA were performed to compare the surface roughness (Ra), pH and C. albicans binding level by radioisotope (${\alpha}$=0.05). The statistical significance of the relation between Ra and adhesion was evaluated by correlation analysis. RESULTS. The degree of Ra was significantly decreased in the following order: COE-SOFT$^{TM}$, acrylic resin, GC RELINE$^{TM}$ and SOFRELINER TOUGH$^{(R)}$. The immersion in denture cleansers significantly increased Ra of resilient liners, except for SOFRELINER TOUGH$^{(R)}$ in Cleadent$^{(R)}$. No significant differences in pH curves were observed among groups immersed in distilled water and denture cleansers. The binding levels of C. albicans were significantly decreased in the following order: COE-SOFT$^{TM}$, GC RELINE$^{TM}$, SOFRELINER TOUGH$^{(R)}$, and acrylic resin. The immersion in Cleadent$^{(R)}$ seemed to decrease C. albicans binding level on GC RELINE$^{TM}$ and SOFRELINER TOUGH$^{(R)}$. CONCLUSION. Based on the C. albicans binding levels results, it is not recommended to immerse COE-SOFT$^{TM}$ in denture cleansers, and GC RELINE$^{TM}$ and SOFRELINER TOUGH$^{(R)}$ should be immersed in Cleadent$^{(R)}$.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.270-277
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study was aimed to determine the effect of two chemically distinct denture cleansers and water on the surface hardness of acrylic and silicone based soft denture liners at various time intervals. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two commonly used commercial resilient liner material were selected based on their chemical composition (silicone- and acrylic-based soft liners) for this investigation. 120 cylindrical specimens were made of $15mm{\times}10mm$ dimensions (according to ASTM: D-2240-64T) in a custom made metal mold. All specimens were stored in artificial saliva throughout the study. Forty specimens were cleansed daily in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution; forty were cleansed in sodium perborate and remaining forty specimens were daily rinsed in water. Testing was done at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months for surface hardness using a Shore A Durometer. A mean of 3 reading for each sample was subjected to one-way ANOVA, Post Hoc test and pair-t test for statistical analysis. P values of less than 0.05 were taken as statistically significant. RESULTS. Surface hardness of all the samples was significantly higher after a period of 6 months irrespective of the cleansing treatment. Minor changes were observed between control, sodium hypochlorite and sodium perborate groups with time. Greater change was observed in surface hardness of acrylic-based soft denture liners as compared to silicone-based soft liners for all groups, as time progressed. CONCLUSION. Silicone-based soft denture liners performed significantly better in all cleansing treatments than acrylic-based soft denture liners.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.121-125
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the bonding properties of denture bases to silicone-based soft denture liners immersed in isobutyl methacrylate (iBMA) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) for various lengths of time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) test specimens were fabricated (75 mm in length, 12 mm in diameter at the thickest section, and 7 mm at the thinnest section) and then randomly assigned to five groups (n=15); untreated (Group 1), resilient liner immersed in iBMA for 1 minute (Group 2), resilient liner immersed in iBMA for 3 minutes (Group 3), resilient liner immersed in HEMA for 1 minute (Group 4), and resilient liner immersed in HEMA for 3 minutes (Group 5). The resilient liner specimens were processed between 2 PMMA blocks. Bonding strength of the liners to PMMA was compared by tensile test with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Data were evaluated by 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons tests (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS. The highest mean value of force was observed in Group 3 specimens. The differences between groups were statistically significant (P<.05), except between Group 1 and Group 4 (P=.063). CONCLUSION. Immersion of silicone-based soft denture liners in iBMA for 3 minutes doubled the tensile bond strength between the silicone soft liner and PMMA denture base materials compared to the control group.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.137-154
• /
• 1987

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the surface characteristics and the fittness of the resilienct denture lines. Firstly, 50 samples ($2.0{\times}4.0{\times}0.3cm$) of 4 resilient lining materials (Molloplast B, Coe Super Soft, Mollosil, Coe Soft) and one conventional acrylic resin (K-33) were processed according to manufacture's direction and examined the surface characteristics by use of surface profilometer and scanning electron microscopy. Secondly, 50 identical maxillary casts were made and 50 denture bases were pro cessed of 4 resilient liners and one conventional acrylic resin and they were stored in the room temperature water bath of 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 weeks after processing. The original casts were cut away 1 cm from the posterior border, the dentures were seated, and the existing space was measured at seven regions according to the storage time by use of the modified thickness guage. The results were as follows. 1. Surface roughness (Rz) were $4.00{\pm}1.60{\mu}m$ in Mollosil, $4.47{\pm}2.21{\mu}m$ in Molloplast B, $7.46{\pm}1.70{\mu}m$ in Coe Super Soft, $12.70{\pm}2.39{\mu}m$ in Coe Soft and $13.03{\pm}2.74{\mu}m$ in K-33. 2. The generation of porosity was far more active in cold-cured resilient liners (Coe Soft and Mollosil) than in heat cured resilient liners (Molloplast B, and Coe Super Soft) and conventional heat cured resin (K-33). 3. Denture bases showed the greatest discrepancy at the central portion of the posterior palatal border and the intimate contact in the buccal flange regardless of denture base materials. 4. When the denture bases were stored in the water for 1 day and 6 weeks after processing, the sum of average discrepancies in the seven regions of the denture base was the greatest in K-33 followed by Molloplast B, Mollosil, Coe Soft and Coe Super Soft but followed by Coe Soft, Molloplast B, Mollosil, Coe Super Soft in that order respectively. 5. There was not a significant difference (p>0.05) in Coe Super Soft, K-33 but there was a significant difference (P<0.01) in Molloplast B, Mollosil, Coe Soft at the amount of dimensional changes according to the storage time.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.19-27
• /
• 1993

For the purpose of this study was to determine the growth of Candide albicans on the surface of the resilient denture liners. The discs$(40\times40mm)$ of 2 resilient lining materals (Molloplast B, Mollosil) and one conventional acrylic resin (K-33) and one metal plate were processed and disinfected. Firstly, the test discs were placed into petri dish, and Candide albicans suspensions was overlayed on the test discs. And the test discs were incubated with intermitant shaking for 1 hour, 2 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours. After incubation, imprint culture method was achived and counted the colony on the agar plate. Secondly, the effect of denture cleansing agents on the growth of Candide alibicans on the resilient dentureliners was evaluated. The results were as follows : 1. The growth of Candida albicans on discs of Molloplast B and Mollosil was increased than that on discs of acrylic resin and metal plate (p<0.05). 2. As Candide albicans suspensions were incubated for 2 hours, the growth of Candida albicans on discs of Mollosil was increased than that on discs of Molloplast B (p<0.05), and the growth of Candide albicans on discs of metal plate was increased than that on discs of acrylic resin (p<0.05). 3. As Candide albicans suspensions were incubated for 6 hours, the growth of Candide albicans on discs of Mollosil was increased than that on discs of Molloplast B (p<0.05). 4. The growth of Candide albicans on discs of Mollosil and Molloplast B in treating denture cleansing agent was inhibited than control discs (p<0.05).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.411-436
• /
• 1992

The purpose of this study was to assess the adhesion of resilient denture liners (such as, heat-cured silicone molloplast B,cold- cured silicone Mollosil) to polymethyl metacrylate (K-33) and metal (Megalloy) in the laboratory by peel test. The resilient denture lines were processed according to manufactures instruction, onto prepared specimens(original resin base plate, rough resin base plate, stippled metal plate, mesh metal plate ) 75mm long and 25m wide. And then, the peel test was performed by instron. The results were as follows : 1. The bonding strength of Mollosil was stronger than that of Molloplast B except the specimen of stippled metal plate. 2. The tensile strength of Mollosil was weaker than that of Molloplast Bas tearing of Mollosil was occured in the peel test. 3. Mesh metal plate had the highest bonding strength in the case of Molloplast B and Mollosil. But stippled metal plate have high bonding strength in the case of Molloplast B and have the lowest bonding strength in the case of Mollosil. 4. The bonding strength of rough resin base plate was stronger than that of original resin base plate in the case of Molloplast B and Mollosil. 5. The bonding strength of metal plates was stronger than that of resin base plates in the case of Molloplast B and Mollosil except the case of bonding strength between the stippled metal plate and Mollosil. 6. It seems that the Increase of surface and retention form of metal plate and resin base plate produces higher physical bonding strength.