Effect of Net Fiber Reinforcement Surface Treatment on Soft Denture Liner Retention and Longevity
Purpose: To evaluate shear bond strength of Molloplast‐B soft liner attached to different acrylic surfaces (smooth, rough, and Sticktech net fiber‐reinforced interfaces) after 3000 thermal cycles. Materials and Methods: Sixty‐nine specimens were fabricated by attaching Molloplast‐B soft liner to acr...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 19; no. 4; pp. 258 - 262 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Malden, USA
Blackwell Publishing Inc
01.06.2010
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Purpose: To evaluate shear bond strength of Molloplast‐B soft liner attached to different acrylic surfaces (smooth, rough, and Sticktech net fiber‐reinforced interfaces) after 3000 thermal cycles.
Materials and Methods: Sixty‐nine specimens were fabricated by attaching Molloplast‐B soft liner to acrylic bases of three interfaces (n= 23); smooth (Group 1, control), rough (Group 2), and Sticktech net fiber‐reinforced interface (Group 3). The specimens underwent 3000 thermocycles (5 and 55°C) before being subject to a shear bond test at 2 mm/min crosshead speed. Debonding sites were investigated using an optical microscope at 40× magnification. Bond failures were categorized as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed.
Results: Mean (SD) bond strength values (MPa) were: 0.71 (0.15); 0.63 (0.07); and 0.83 (0.12) for smooth, rough, and fiber‐reinforced acrylic interfaces, respectively. The mean values were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test for pairwise comparisons (p≤ 0.05). The net fiber‐reinforced acrylic interface exhibited a statistically significantly higher bond strength value when compared to smooth and rough acrylic interfaces (P= 0.003 and P= 0.000, respectively). Modes of failure were mainly cohesive (91%), followed by mixed failures (9%).
Conclusions: Molloplast‐B exhibited a stronger bond to StickTech Net fiber‐reinforced surfaces when compared to smooth and rough acrylic interfaces after thermocycling. This may enhance prosthesis serviceability during clinical use. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-WV0CK6P6-K istex:0E75FB7FB26F6B9792239638CE3D732397E54D13 ArticleID:JOPR566 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1059-941X 1532-849X 1532-849X |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00566.x |