Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare color, texture, and Shore A hardness of a resilient silicone denture liner with as‐polymerized, roughened, or pumiced surfaces after treatment with perborate‐, persulfate‐, or hypochlorite‐containing denture cleansers at 25...
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare color, texture, and Shore A hardness of a resilient silicone denture liner with as‐polymerized, roughened, or pumiced surfaces after treatment with perborate‐, persulfate‐, or hypochlorite‐containing denture cleansers at 25° or 55°.Materials and Methods Fifty‐eight specimens that each exhibited an as‐polymerized, a roughened, and a pumiced area were exposed to 5 different commercially available perborate‐, persulfate‐, or hypochlorite‐containing denture cleansers at 25° or 55° continuously for 4 ½ months. The solutions were replaced twice a day. Control specimens were soaked in water with no cleanser. Before and after the 4 ½-month cleaning regimen, the color, hardness, and texture of resilient liner surfaces were evaluated using a color densitometer, a Shore A durometer (Shore Instrument & Mfg Co, Freeport, NY), and a surface profilometer, respectively. Differences among groups after the cleanser treatment were determined using a repeated measures analysis of variance (α= 0.05) and a Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test.Results Roughened specimen surfaces after 25° or 55° cleanser treatment exhibited significant color loss with some perborate‐containing cleansers compared with the control. Roughened specimens treated at 55° with perborate‐containing cleansers also exhibited significantly greater color loss than those treated with the persulfate‐containing cleanser. With roughened surfaces, significantly greater hardness was found with some perborate‐containing cleanser compared with a hypochlorite‐containing cleanser after treatment at 25°. No differences were observed in surface texture based upon cleanser treatment.Conclusion After silicone resilient denture liner treatment with certain perborate‐containing denture cleansers, a greater amount of components could leach from the liner leading to a loss of color if the liner surface is rough.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare color, texture, and Shore A hardness of a resilient silicone denture liner with as‐polymerized, roughened, or pumiced surfaces after treatment with perborate‐, persulfate‐, or hypochlorite‐containing denture cleansers at 25° or 55°.Materials and Methods Fifty‐eight specimens that each exhibited an as‐polymerized, a roughened, and a pumiced area were exposed to 5 different commercially available perborate‐, persulfate‐, or hypochlorite‐containing denture cleansers at 25° or 55° continuously for 4 ½ months. The solutions were replaced twice a day. Control specimens were soaked in water with no cleanser. Before and after the 4 ½-month cleaning regimen, the color, hardness, and texture of resilient liner surfaces were evaluated using a color densitometer, a Shore A durometer (Shore Instrument & Mfg Co, Freeport, NY), and a surface profilometer, respectively. Differences among groups after the cleanser treatment were determined using a repeated measures analysis of variance (α= 0.05) and a Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test.Results Roughened specimen surfaces after 25° or 55° cleanser treatment exhibited significant color loss with some perborate‐containing cleansers compared with the control. Roughened specimens treated at 55° with perborate‐containing cleansers also exhibited significantly greater color loss than those treated with the persulfate‐containing cleanser. With roughened surfaces, significantly greater hardness was found with some perborate‐containing cleanser compared with a hypochlorite‐containing cleanser after treatment at 25°. No differences were observed in surface texture based upon cleanser treatment.Conclusion After silicone resilient denture liner treatment with certain perborate‐containing denture cleansers, a greater amount of components could leach from the liner leading to a loss of color if the liner surface is rough.
참고문헌 (13)
Davenport, J C, Wilson, H J, Spence, D.
The compatibility of soft lining materials and denture cleansers.
British dental journal,
vol.161,
no.1,
13-17.
Schmidt Jr., William F., Smith, Dale E..
A six-year retrospective study of Molloplast-B-lined dentures. Part II: Liner serviceability.
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
vol.50,
no.4,
459-465.
Masella, Roger P., Dolan, Charles T., Laney, William R..
The prevention of the growth of Candida on Silastic 390 soft liner for dentures.
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
vol.33,
no.3,
250-257.
Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Bertram, U..
Denture Stomatitis I. The Etiology in Relation to Trauma and Infection.
Acta odontologica scandinavica,
vol.28,
no.1,
71-92.
Dootz, E.R., Koran, A., Craig, R.G..
Physical property comparison of 11 soft denture lining materials as a function of accelerated aging.
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
vol.69,
no.1,
114-119.
Sauer Jr., John L..
A clinical evaluation of silastic 390 as a lining material for dentures.
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry,
vol.16,
no.4,
650-660.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.