Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section)

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Permasoft® and GC Reline Soft® Resilient Liners after Denture Base Surface Pretreatment


Affiliations
1 Dental College, Rungta College of Dental Science and Research, Bhilai – 490024, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Objectives: The surface treatment of intaglio denture base surface by sandblasting followed by Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) monomer might enhance the bond strength of resilient liners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare Tensile Bond Strength (TBS) of two resilient liners after surface treatment of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) resins by sandblasting and MMA monomer. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty PMMA resin blocks were randomly divided into eight groups of 20 blocks each based on type of resilient long term liner used (P=PermaSoft and G=GC Reline Soft) and the surface treatment performed (C=untreated Controls, S=Sandblasted, M=MMA monomer treated and SM=Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated: Group PC (PermaSoft untreated Controls), PS (PermaSoft Sandblasted), PM (PermaSoft MMA monomer treated) and PSM (PermaSoft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated, GC (GC Reline Soft untreated Controls), GS (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted), GM (GC Reline Soft MMA monomer treated) and GSM (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated). Each specimen was prepared by joining two PMMA resin blocks having standard dimensions of 10 × 10 × 40mm with either of the resilient liner of thickness of 10 × 10 × 3mm. The prepared 80 specimens were subjected to testing of TBS by universal testing machine. Also, the types of failure, whether adhesive, cohesive or mixed, were determined by stereomicroscope. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test was used to compare TBS of different surface treatment group with similar resilient liner. Student T-test was used to compare TBS of different resilient liner with similar surface treatment. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: There was highly significant difference in mean TBS of four surface treatment subgroups within both the groups (P<0.001). The Tukey post hoc test showed significant difference (P<0.05) between group PC=0.837 ± 0.120MPa and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa; and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa and GM=2.053 ± 0.784MPa and highly significant difference (P<0.001) between group PS=0.741 ± 0.103 MPa) and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa); and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa) and GSM=2.176 ± 0.262MPa. The mean TBS of GC Reline Soft was significantly higher (<0.001) than PermaSoft in various surface treatment groups. The overall modes of failures were predominantly cohesive type (63.75%) followed by mixed type (18.75%) and adhesive type (17.50%). Conclusions: All groups tested had mean bond strength values greater than the minimum acceptable standard (0.44MPa) for clinical application. MMA monomer treatment alone or in combination with sandblasting resulted in increase of the mean TBS whereas sandblasting resulted in decrease of the mean TBS of both PermaSoft and GC Reline Soft specimens.

Keywords

Denture Liners, Mode of Bond Failure, Surface Pretreatment, Tensile Bond Strength
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Khanna A, Bhatnagar VM, Karani JT, Madria K, Mistry S. A comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between two commercially available heat cured resilient liners and denture base resin with different surface treatments. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9:ZC30–4. https://doi. org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/11504.5892. PMid:26155558. PMCid:PMC4484150

  • Braden M, Wright PS, Parker S. Soft lining materials – A review. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 1995; 3:163–74.

  • Phoenix RD. Denture base resins. In Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 11th ed.; Anusavice K, Ed.; Saunders: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2003; p. 750–2.

  • Chladek GR, Żmudzki J, Kasperski J. Long-term soft denture lining materials. Materials. 2014; 7:5816–42. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7085816. PMid:28788163. PMCid:PMC5456172

  • Surapaneni H, Ariga P, Haribabu R, Shankar YR, Kumar VH, Attili S. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength between silicon soft liners and processed denture base resin conditioned by three modes of surface treatment: an invitro study. J Ind Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 13:274–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0235-5. PMid:24431747. PMCid:PMC3732717

  • Kulkarni RS, Parkhedkar R. The effect of denture base surface pretreatments on bond strengths of two long term resilient liners. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011; 3:16–9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.1.16. PMid:21503188. PMCid:PMC3076568

  • Swapna C, Hareesh MT, Renjith M, Ahmed A, Abraham IA, Gopinathan M. An evaluation of the effect of surface treatment on the bond strength of soft denture liners. J Int Oral Health. 2016; 8:922–6.

  • Garcia RCMR, Leon BLT, Oliveira VMB, Cury AADB. Effect of denture cleanser on weight, surface roughness and tensile bond strength of two resilient denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:489–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-3913(03)00126-4

  • Kawano F, Tada N, Nagao K, Matsumoto N. The 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

  • Khan Z, Martin J, Collard S. Adhesion characteristics of visible light cured denture base material bonded to resilient lining materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62:196–200. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90313-2

  • Emmer T J, Vaidyanathan J, Vaidyanathan 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

  • El-Hadary A, Drummond JL. Comparitive study of water sorption, solubility and tensile bond strength of two soft lining materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83:356–61. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70140-5

  • Pinto JRR, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP, de Arruda Nobilo MA. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of four long term soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:516–21. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.128953. PMid:12474002

  • Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE. Evaluation of bond strength of soft relining materials to denture base polymers. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1373–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental. 2006.11.014. PMid:17222898

  • McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Kamohara H. Adhesive bond strength and compliance for denture soft lining materials. Biomaterials. 2002; 23:1347–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0142-9612(01)00253-8

  • Madan N, Dutta K. Evaluation of tensile bond strength of heat cure and auto-polymerizing silicone-based resilient denture liners before and after thermocycling. Ind J Dent Res. 2012; 23:64–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970- 9290.99041. PMid:22842252

  • Minami H, Suzuki S, Ohashi H, Kurashige H, Tanaka T. Effect of surface treatment on the bonding of an autopolymerizing soft denture liner to a denture base resin. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:297–301.

  • Gopal KV, Padmaja BJ, Reddy NR, Reddy BM, Babu NS, Sunil M. Comparison and evaluation of tensile bond strength of two soft liners to the denture base resin with different surface textures: An in vitro study. J NTR Uni Health Sci. 2014; 3:102–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277- 8632.134850

  • Sarac YS, Sarac D, Kulunk T, Kulunk S. The effect of chemi¬cal surface treatments of different denture base resins on the shear bond strength of denture repair. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94:259–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent. 2005.05.024. PMid:16126078

  • Leles CR, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC. Bonding strength between a hard chairside reline resin and a denture base material as influenced by surface treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28:1153–7. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00786.x. PMid:11874516

  • Al-Athel MS, Jagger RG. Effect of test method on the bond strength of a silicone resilient denture lining material. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 76:535–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-3913(96)90014-1

  • Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Wetting the repair surface with methyl methacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72:639–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- 3913(94)90297-6

  • Kulak-Ozkan Y, Sertgoz A, Gedik H. Effect of thermocycling on tensile bond strength of six silicone based resilient denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:303–10. https://doi. org/10.1067/mpr.2003.41. PMid:12644808

  • Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A, Craig RG. Comparison of bond strength of six denture liners to denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68:368–71. https://doi. org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90347-D


Abstract Views: 138

PDF Views: 0




  • Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Permasoft® and GC Reline Soft® Resilient Liners after Denture Base Surface Pretreatment

Abstract Views: 138  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Fatema Sodawala
Dental College, Rungta College of Dental Science and Research, Bhilai – 490024, India
Javed Sodawala
Dental College, Rungta College of Dental Science and Research, Bhilai – 490024, India

Abstract


Objectives: The surface treatment of intaglio denture base surface by sandblasting followed by Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) monomer might enhance the bond strength of resilient liners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare Tensile Bond Strength (TBS) of two resilient liners after surface treatment of Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) resins by sandblasting and MMA monomer. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty PMMA resin blocks were randomly divided into eight groups of 20 blocks each based on type of resilient long term liner used (P=PermaSoft and G=GC Reline Soft) and the surface treatment performed (C=untreated Controls, S=Sandblasted, M=MMA monomer treated and SM=Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated: Group PC (PermaSoft untreated Controls), PS (PermaSoft Sandblasted), PM (PermaSoft MMA monomer treated) and PSM (PermaSoft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated, GC (GC Reline Soft untreated Controls), GS (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted), GM (GC Reline Soft MMA monomer treated) and GSM (GC Reline Soft Sandblasted and MMA monomer treated). Each specimen was prepared by joining two PMMA resin blocks having standard dimensions of 10 × 10 × 40mm with either of the resilient liner of thickness of 10 × 10 × 3mm. The prepared 80 specimens were subjected to testing of TBS by universal testing machine. Also, the types of failure, whether adhesive, cohesive or mixed, were determined by stereomicroscope. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test was used to compare TBS of different surface treatment group with similar resilient liner. Student T-test was used to compare TBS of different resilient liner with similar surface treatment. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: There was highly significant difference in mean TBS of four surface treatment subgroups within both the groups (P<0.001). The Tukey post hoc test showed significant difference (P<0.05) between group PC=0.837 ± 0.120MPa and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa; and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa and GM=2.053 ± 0.784MPa and highly significant difference (P<0.001) between group PS=0.741 ± 0.103 MPa) and PSM=1.104 ± 0.234MPa); and GS=1.304 ± 0.261MPa) and GSM=2.176 ± 0.262MPa. The mean TBS of GC Reline Soft was significantly higher (<0.001) than PermaSoft in various surface treatment groups. The overall modes of failures were predominantly cohesive type (63.75%) followed by mixed type (18.75%) and adhesive type (17.50%). Conclusions: All groups tested had mean bond strength values greater than the minimum acceptable standard (0.44MPa) for clinical application. MMA monomer treatment alone or in combination with sandblasting resulted in increase of the mean TBS whereas sandblasting resulted in decrease of the mean TBS of both PermaSoft and GC Reline Soft specimens.

Keywords


Denture Liners, Mode of Bond Failure, Surface Pretreatment, Tensile Bond Strength

References