• 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.5 no.3
• /
• pp.287-295
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. This study investigated the effect of laser parameters and air-abrasion on the peel strength of silicon-based soft denture liner to different denture resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Specimens (N=180) were prepared out of three different denture base resins (Rodex, cross-linked denture base acrylic resin; Paladent, heat-cured acrylic resin; Deflex, Polyamide resin) ($75mm{\times}25mm{\times}3mm$). A silicon-based soft denture liner (Molloplast B) was applied to the denture resins after the following conditioning methods: a) Air-abrasion ($50{\mu}m$), b) Er,Cr:YSGG laser (Waterlase MD Turbo, Biolase Technology) at 2 W-20 Hz, c) Er,Cr:YSGG laser at 2 W-30 Hz, d) Er,Cr:YSGG laser at 3 W-20 Hz, e) Er,Cr:YSGG laser at 3 W-30 Hz. Non-conditioned group acted as the control group. Peel test was performed in a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated visually. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Denture liner tested showed increased peel strength after laser treatment with different parameters ($3.9{\pm}0.4-5.58{\pm}0.6$ MPa) compared to the control ($3.64{\pm}0.5-4.58{\pm}0.5$ MPa) and air-abraded groups ($3.1{\pm}0.6-4.46{\pm}0.3$ MPa), but the results were not statistically significant except for Paladent, with the pretreatment of Er,Cr:YSGG laser at 3 W-20 Hz. Polyamide resin after air-abrasion showed significantly lower peel strength than those of other groups ($3.1{\pm}0.6$ MPa). CONCLUSION. Heat-cured acrylic resin, PMMA, may benefit from Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment at 3 W-20 Hz irradiation. Air-abrasion of polyamide resins should be avoided not to impair their peel bond strengths to silicon-based soft denture liners.

• 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 2000

One of the methods to improve the softness and comfortness of denture base is the use of soft denture liners. In this study, specimens were made by 2 kinds of acrylic based soft lining materials and 2 kinds of silicone based soft lining materials, and bonded to acrylic resin(Lucitone $199^{(R)}$). Then they were tested the differences of tensile bond strengths according to the materials, thickness, surface treatment and failure mode. 1. Tensile bond strength according to soft lining materials was increased in order of Coe-$soft^{(R)}$, $Mollosil^{(R)}$, $Trusoft^{(R)}$, Ufi-Gel $C^{(R)}$. The differences between groups were statistically significant at level of 0.05. 2. Tensile bond strength according to thickness of soft lining materials was increased in order of 3mm, 2mm, 1mm. The differences between groups were not statistically significant. 3. Tensile bond strength of treated surface showed higher bond strength than nontreated surface. The difference between groups was not statistically significant. 4. The failure mode of Coe-$soft^{(R)}$, $Trusoft^{(R)}$, $Mollosil^{(R)}$ were mainly cohesive failure, and that of Ufi-Gel $C^{(R)}$ were mainly adhesive failure.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.219-235
• /
• 1993

To determine the compatibilities of soft liming materials with denture cleansers by measuring the flexibility and elasticity and investigating the surface changes, 4 self-curing acrylic resin soft lining materials and 1 heat-curing silicone soft lining material were evaluated. 3mm thick x 20mm diameter discs of soft lining materials were individually bonded to a hard acrylic resin base as per manufacturers’instructions. Using an Instron universal testing machine, a static stress of $2kg/cm^2$ was applied for 30secs., the strain in compression was measured, giving an indication of the material’s flexibility. Elastic recovery was measured at 10secs. After removal of stress. Surface changes were investigated with Stereomicroscope. Then the specimens were immersed in 4alkaline peroxide denture cleansers and water as control group, tests were carried out at 1 day, 2 days, 7 days, 14 days and 30 days. The results were as follows : 1. Alkaline peroxide denture cleansers caused considerable porosity on the surface of selfcuring acrylic resin soft lining materials, and the most affected by the cleansers were Viscogel, Coe-Soft, Coe-Comfort, Lynal, in that order. 2. There was significant difference in flexibility between each soft lining material except for Coe-Comfort and Visco-gel, and every soft lining material was significant difference in elasticity. Especially Molloplast-B and Lynal were less flexible and more elastic than other soft lining materials(p<0.05). 3. The denture cleansers increased the flexibility and elasticity of the soft lining materials compared with control group(p<0.05), and Denalan, Polident, Kleenite, Efferdent affected the soft lining materials in that order. 4. There was significant difference in flexibility between each denture cleanser except for Denalan and Polident(p<0.05). Though Denalan and Polident, Denalan and Kleenite did not show significant difference in elasticity, other denture cleansers showed significant difference among each other(p<0.05). 5. Clinically Coe-Comfort, Coe-Soft and Visco-gel were incompatible with alkaline peroxide denture cleansers, and Lynal would be used within only 2 weeks. But Molloplast-B was compatible with alkaline peroxide denture cleansers.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.200-211
• /
• 1999

For many years permanent soft denture liners has been widely used in dental practice directly or indirectly because of its function in absorbing and distributing the impact force. However, it reveals problems such as lack of permanency and decreased bond strength in long term use. The purpose of this study is to measure the bond strength and failure between denture base resin and several permanent liners. Lucitone 199 was used as denture base resin with soft acrylic liners (Triad, Tokuso Rebase) and silicone elastomers (Tokuyama, Ufi Gel C) bonded to measure the tensile strength before and after thermocycling. The thermocycling was done in 2000 cycles at $5^{\circ}C,\;26^{\circ}C\;and\;55^{\circ}C$ and the measured tensile strength values before and after thermocycling were compared. The mode of failure was investigated in the separated specimens. The results are as follows. 1. As to tensile strength, the strongest material is Tokuso Rebase followed by Triad, Tokuyama, Ufi Gel C in before thermocycling and the order of Triad, Tokuso Rebase, Tokuyama, Ufi Gel C in after thermocycling state. There was significant difference between the values of Triad, Tokuso Rebase and Tokuyama, Ufi Gel C(p<0.05). 2. As to degree of displacement, Ufi Gel C showed most displacement with or without thermo-cycling treatment and also the difference was significant with the other materials(p<0.05). 3. As to comparisons before and after thermocycling, Tokuso Rebase and Tokuyama showed significant difference in bond strength, whereas Triad and Tokuso Rebase showed significant difference in the degree of displacement(p<0.05). 4. In debonded specimens, Triad and Ufi Gel C showed adhesion failure and Tokuyama showed cohesion failure. Both failures were observed in Tokuso Rebase with adhesion failure up to 70%. The results of this study showed that degree of bond strength between permanent soft denture liner and denture base resin were variable. There was a significant difference between soft acrylics and silicone elastomers with regard to bond strength. Further research in improving bond strength of widely used silicone elastomers and in developing the method of measuring bond strength between denture base resin and the lining materials is needed.

• 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 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$^{(R)}$.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.133-138
• /
• 1992

The base of a metal base denture that is made of acrylic resin base and metal in lined by soft liner named silicon rubber and its merits are as follows. 1. It has a good retention and fastness. 2. It has a good comfort and stability. 3. It is easy to mix various kinds of base materials. 4. It is easy to repair. 5. The pressure of bone and mucosal tissue is decreased and bite force is dispersed.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2009

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.