The effect of aging by thermal cycling and mechanical brushing on resilient denture liner hardness and roughness.
The effect of aging by thermal cycling and mechanical brushing on resilient denture liner hardness and roughness.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1532-849x.2007.00293.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Henriques, Guilherme Elias Pesanha
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hermann, Caio;Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz;Henriques, Guilherme Elias Pesanha
目的：本研究的目的是探讨老化对弹性义齿衬套的影响。老化效应通过热循环和机械涂刷产生，并量化为弹性义齿衬垫表面硬度和粗糙度的变化。材料和方法：研究了一种增塑型丙烯酸树脂（Dentuflex）和两种硅基（Molloplast-B, Sofreliner MS）弹性义齿衬套。测试前和测试后的粗糙度和硬度测量分别使用Surfcorder SE 1700和Shore a硬度计Teclock GS-709记录。制作标本60个；一半在热循环器（5和55摄氏度）中进行3000次循环。剩余的标本接受了机械涂刷机的30,000次涂抹，然后进行了3000次热循环。在扫描电镜下观察各组有代表性的标本。资料采用多元方差分析、分裂图分析和Tukey检验（α = 0.05）。结果：Dentuflex、Molloplast-B和Sofreliner MS软衬在热循环前（79 +/- 2.9、40 +/- 1.4、33 +/- 0.7）和热循环后（80 +/- 3.1、40 +/- 1、34 +/- 0.9）的Shore A硬度值差异显著（p < 0.05）。相同软衬材料的表面粗糙度在开始时（2.2 +/- 0.4;1.6 +/- 0.6;0.2 +/- 0.1）差异显著（p < 0.05），但在刷牙后（1.7 +/- 0.3;1.7 +/- 0.4;1.9 +/- 0.8）和热循环后（1.6 +/- 0.5;1.6 +/- 0.6;1.5 +/- 0.5）差异不显著（p < 0.05）。结论：热循环促进Sofreliner MS和Dentuflex的硬度增加。机械刷刷促进了Sofreliner MS和Dentuflex材料的磨损。两种试验均未对molloplastic - b产生有害影响。
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of aging on resilient denture liners. The aging effects were produced by using thermal cycling and mechanical brushing and were quantified as changes to surface hardness and roughness of resilient denture liners.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A plasticized acrylic resin (Dentuflex) and two silicone-based (Molloplast-B, Sofreliner MS) resilient denture liners were examined. Pre- and post-test roughness and hardness measurements were recorded using a Surfcorder SE 1700 and Shore A durometer Teclock GS-709, respectively. Sixty specimens were manufactured; half were subjected to 3000 cycles in the thermal cycler (5 and 55 degrees C). The remaining specimens received 30,000 strokes applied by a mechanical brushing machine followed by 3000 thermal cycles. Representative specimens from each group were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were examined by multiple ANOVA, split-plot analysis, and Tukey test (alpha= 0.05).RESULTS: Shore A hardness values for Dentuflex, Molloplast-B, and Sofreliner MS soft liners were different from each other (p < 0.05) before (79 +/- 2.9; 40 +/- 1.4; 33 +/- 0.7) and after (80 +/- 3.1; 40 +/- 1; 34 +/- 0.9) thermocycling. The surface roughness (in mum) of the same soft liner materials was significantly different (p < 0.05) at the start (2.2 +/- 0.4; 1.6 +/- 0.6; 0.2 +/- 0.1) but it was not different (p > 0.05) after tooth brushing (1.7 +/- 0.3; 1.7 +/- 0.4; 1.9 +/- 0.8) or thermocycling (1.6 +/- 0.5; 1.6 +/- 0.6; 1.5 +/- 0.5).CONCLUSION: Thermal cycling promoted increased hardness for Sofreliner MS and Dentuflex. Mechanical brushing promoted wear abrasion in Sofreliner MS and Dentuflex materials. Molloplast-B experienced no deleterious effects from either of the tests.