The effect of different surface characterization on bonding strength of maxillofacial silicone elastomer to two different framework materials.

Authors

  • Zhala Meran Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
  • Omar Kamaran Anwar Directorate of Health, Erbil, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2022.14

Keywords:

Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer, Acrylic Resin, Metal Chrome Cobalt, Bonding Strength

Abstract

Background and Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the bonding strength between silicone elastomer and two types of framework materials (acrylic resin and metal chrome cobalt) with different surface characterization.
Methods A-2186 silicone elastomer was bonded with A-330-G primer to two group of framework materials (acrylic resin and metal chrome cobalt). Each group was subdivided into 4 different surface characterization (Polished surface as a control, Sandblasted surface by aluminum oxide media 250 micron, Polished surface with retentive holes, Surface with retentive holes and sandblasted by aluminum oxide media 250 micron). The samples were prepared with the dimension of (75x 10x 3 mm). All the test groups were subjected to 1800 peel strength test on Hounsfeild universal testing machine (HT-400). The test was carried out according to the ASTM D-903 specifications. The obtained results were then subjectedto statistical analysis using Stat Graph 5.1 and the statistical significance was set at 5% level of significance.
Result The result showed no significant difference between polished acrylic and sandblasted acrylic surface. However, a significant improvement in bonding strength was observed when acrylic surface was grooved with retentive holes (with and without sandblast surface characterization). However, a significant effect was seen when the surface of metal chrome cobalt was sandblasted with aluminum oxide media compared to polished metal. Additionally, grooves also improved the bonding strength. Furthermore, superior effects were seen when the grooves where sandblasted. Lastly, Intergroup comparison showed superior bonding strength between metal chrome cobalt and silicone compared to acrylic resin and silicone for all surface characterization.
Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that: There is no significant difference when acrylic surface was sandblasted. However, retentive holes improved the bonding strength between acrylic and silicone. While sandblast improved the bonding strength between metal and silicone elastomer. Lastly, metal bond better to silicone than acrylic resin for all tested groups.

References

Nayak S, Lenka P, Bhattacharya I, Das R. Postoperative custom-made submandibular two-part silicone prosthesis. International Journal of Health & Allied Sciences. 2021;10(2):169–9.

Unkovskiy A, Wahl E, Huettig F, Keutel C, Spintzyk S. Multimaterial 3D printing of a definitive silicone auricular prosthesis: An improved technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(6):946–50.

Eo MY, Cho YJ, Nguyen TTH, Seo MH, Kim SM. Implant-supported orbital prosthesis: a technical innovation of silicone fabrication. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):51.

Paulini, Análise de diferentes propriedades físicase ópticas de silicones faciais, com diferentes pigmentos, submetidos ao tratamento com plasmas de baixa temperatura e ao envelhecimento acelerado, (2018).

Dubey SG, Balwani TR, Chandak AV, Pande S. Material in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics--A Review. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2020;9(44):3319–25.

Bhola RD, Pisulkar SGK, Godbole SAD, Purohit HS, Borle AB. Maxillofacial Prosthesis for Combined Intra and Extra-Oral Defect--A Case Report. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2021;10(8):550–5.

Gurjar R, Kumar S, Rao H, Sharma A, Bhansali S. Retentive Aids in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics-A Review. International Journal of Contemporary Dentistry. 2011;2(3).

Rajani A, Mistry G, Sardar C, Kini A. Rekindle maxillofacial prosthesis with extra oral implants as retention system. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences. 2020;6(3).

El-Haddad H, Judge RB, Abduo J, Palamara J. Laboratory Evaluation of Novel Implant Metal-Acrylic Prosthesis Design: Influence of Monolithic Acrylic Veneer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(1):100–6.

Javanmard A, Mohammadi F, Mojtahedi H. Reconstruction of a total rhinectomy defect by implant-retained nasal prosthesis: A clinical report. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Cases. 2020;6(1):100141.

Kethireddy S, Kethireddy K. Refabrication of an implant-retained auricular prosthesis using clip attachment pickup technique. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(3):310–5.

Hakan AKIN, Tugut F, Mutaf B, Guney U, Ozdemir A. Effect of sandblasting with different size of aluminum oxide particles on tensile bond strength of resilient liner to denture base. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2011;14(1):5-11.

Park HW, Seo HS, Kwon K, Lee JH, Shin S. Enhanced Heat Resistance of Acrylic PressureSensitive Adhesive by Incorporating Silicone Blocks Using Silicone-Based Macro-AzoInitiator. Polymers. 2020;12(10):2410.

Polyzois GL, Frangou MJ. Bonding of silicone prosthetic elastomers to three different denture resins. Int J Prosthodont. 2012;15:535–8.

Tanveer W. Biomaterials for maxillofacialprosthetic rehabilitation. In Advanced Dental Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; 2019. pp. 615–41.

Mutluay MM, RuyterI E. Evaluation of bondstrength of softre-lining materials to denture base polymers. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1373–81.

Güngör MB, Nemli SK, Inal CB, Bağkur M, Dilsiz N. Effect of plasma treatment on the peel bond strength between maxillofacial silicones and resins. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(2):242–50.

Shetty US, Guttal SS. Evaluation of bonding efficiency between facial silicone and acrylic resin using different bonding agents and surface alterations. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4(3):121–6.

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.

Jacobsen NL, Mitchell DL, Johnson DL, Holt RA. Lased and sandblasted denture base surface preparations affecting resilient liner bonding. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(2):153–8.

Li FL, Ma L, Shi Y, Zhao YM. [Effect of surface treatment on the bonding of silicone elastomer to acrylic resin]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009;44(9):558–61.

Salcedo-Alcaychahua AB, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Arriola-Guillén LE. Shear Bond Strength at the Resin/Bracket Interface of Sandblasted Brackets with Different Aluminum Oxide Particle Size. Journal of Orofacial Sciences. 2020;12(1):24.

Chauhan M, Aparna IN, Ginjupalli K, Kumari S, Sandhya PS, Mitra N. An In vitro evaluation of tensile bond strength of commercially available temporary soft liners to different types of denture base resins. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2018;9(2):263.

Jagger RG, al-Athel MS, Jagger DC, Vowles RW. Some variables influencing the bond strength between PMMA and a silicone denture lining material. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(1):55–8.

Rhea A, Ahila SC, Kumar BM. Evaluation of effect of laser etching on shear bond strength between maxillofacial silicone and acrylic resin subjected to accelerated aging process. Indian J Dent Res. 2017;28(5):498–502.

Bharti D, Singh N, Goel A. Evaluation of bond strength of post and luting agent using different techniques for surface treatment. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine. 2021;7(3):730–6.

Kalra S, Kharsan V, Kalra NM. Comparative evaluation of effect of metal primer and sandblasting on the shear bond strength between heat cured acrylic denture base resin and cobalt-chromium alloy: an in vitro study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2015;6(3):386.

Latifi A, Imani M, Khorasani MT, Joupari MD. Plasma surface oxidation of 316L stainless steel for improving adhesion strength of silicone rubber coating to metal substrate. Applied Surface Science. 2014;320:471–81.

Jaber AN, Jassim RK, Moudhafar M, Fatihallah AA. Effect of Polyester Fiber Incorporation into RTV Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer on Tear Strength, Tensile Strength, Surface Roughness and Shore ‘A’Hardness: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences. 2018;7(2):92–101.

Shetty US, Guttal SS. Evaluation of bonding efficiency between facial silicone and acrylic resin using different bonding agents and surface alterations. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4(3):121–6.

Unkovskiy A, Wahl E, Huettig F, Keutel C, Spintzyk S. Multimaterial 3D printing of a definitive silicone auricular prosthesis: An improved technique. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125(6):946–50.

Al-Mohammad, Y.N., Evaluation the Effect of Nano Yttrium Oxide Addition on the Mechanical Properties of Room Temperature-Vulcanized Maxmaxillofacial Silicone Elastomers. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology. 2020;14(2):743.

El-Haddad, H., Judge, R.B., Abduo, J. and Palamara, J. Laboratory Evaluation of Novel Implant Metal-Acrylic Prosthesis Design: Influence of Monolithic Acrylic Veneer. International Journal of Oral& Maxillofacial Implants. 2020;35(1).

Downloads

Published

2022-07-30

How to Cite

1.
Meran Z, Anwar OK. The effect of different surface characterization on bonding strength of maxillofacial silicone elastomer to two different framework materials. EDJ [Internet]. 2022 Jul. 30 [cited 2022 Dec. 6];5(1):101-8. Available from: https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/166

Issue

Section

Original Articles