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

Fatema Sodawala, J. Sodawala
{"title":"Comparison of Tensile Bond Strength of Permasoft® and GC Reline Soft® Resilient Liners after Denture Base Surface Pretreatment","authors":"Fatema Sodawala, J. Sodawala","doi":"10.18311/jpfa/2022/28586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":77222,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18311/jpfa/2022/28586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
Permasoft®与GC Reline Soft®弹性衬套在义齿基托表面预处理后的拉伸结合强度比较
目的:采用喷砂加甲基丙烯酸甲酯(MMA)单体对内凹义齿基托表面进行表面处理,可提高弹性衬板的粘结强度。本研究的目的是评估和比较两种弹性衬垫经喷砂和MMA单体表面处理后的拉伸结合强度(TBS)。材料和方法:根据所使用的弹性长期衬管类型(P=PermaSoft和G=GC Reline Soft)和所进行的表面处理(C=未经处理的对照组,S=喷砂处理,M=MMA单体处理,SM=喷砂处理和MMA单体处理),将160个PMMA树脂块随机分为8组,每组20个块。PC组(PermaSoft未处理组)、PS组(PermaSoft喷砂组)、PM组(PermaSoft MMA单体处理组)、PSM组(PermaSoft喷砂组和MMA单体处理组)、GC组(GC Reline软未处理组)、GS组(GC Reline软喷砂组)、GM组(GC Reline软喷砂组和MMA单体处理组)和GSM组(GC Reline软喷砂组和MMA单体处理组)每个试样由两个标准尺寸为10 × 10 × 40mm的PMMA树脂块与任一厚度为10 × 10 × 3mm的弹性衬垫连接而成。用万能试验机对制备的80个试样进行TBS测试。此外,通过体视显微镜确定了失效类型,无论是粘接,内聚还是混合。采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验比较不同表面处理组具有相似弹性衬垫的TBS。采用学生t检验比较表面处理相似的不同弹性衬垫的TBS。显著性水平设为0.05。结果:4个表面处理亚组的平均TBS在两组内均有极显著差异(P<0.001)。Tukey事后检验显示,PC组=0.837±0.120MPa, PSM组=1.104±0.234MPa,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);GS组=1.304±0.261MPa, GM组=2.053±0.784MPa, PS组=0.741±0.103 MPa, PSM组=1.104±0.234MPa,差异极显著(P<0.001);GS=1.304±0.261MPa), GSM=2.176±0.262MPa。在不同的表面处理组中,GC - Reline Soft的平均TBS显著高于PermaSoft(<0.001)。整体破坏模式以粘结型为主(63.75%),其次为混合型(18.75%)和粘结型(17.50%)。结论:所有测试组的平均粘结强度值均大于临床应用的最低可接受标准(0.44MPa)。单独使用MMA单体或联合喷砂处理会增加平均TBS,而喷砂处理会降低PermaSoft和GC Reline Soft样品的平均TBS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信