Evaluation of the Peel Bond Strength of a Room Temperature Vulcanizing Maxillofacial Silicone When Bonded to Three Different High-impact Heat-cured Acrylic Resins: An In Vitro Comparative Study
Aishwarya Shastry, Prema Balehonnur, Vishwananth S Krishnappa, Anoop Nair, Kalavathi Muniyappa, Meghana M Yadav
Heat-cure acrylic resin, High-impact acrylic resin, Lucitone-199, Maxillofacial silicone, Peel bond strength, Primer A330G
Citation Information :
Shastry A, Balehonnur P, Krishnappa VS, Nair A, Muniyappa K, Yadav MM. Evaluation of the Peel Bond Strength of a Room Temperature Vulcanizing Maxillofacial Silicone When Bonded to Three Different High-impact Heat-cured Acrylic Resins: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (2):76-80.
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare the peel bond strength of a room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) maxillofacial silicone bonded to three different high-impact heat-cure acrylic resins.
Materials and methods: A total of 80 standardized rectangular specimens of dimensions 75 × 10 × 6 mm were fabricated. The specimens were categorized into four groups (n = 20 each) as group I—conventional heat-cure acrylic resin (Trevalon) and three brands of high-impact heat-cure acrylic resins (group II: Lucitone 199, group III: Acralyn H, and group IV: Acryl Hi). Each standardized specimen consisted of a rectangular acrylic component to which silicone was bonded using a primer. Peel bond strength between the acrylic and silicone was measured using a universal testing machine. Kruskal–Wallis H test was performed to compare the peel bond strength among all groups, followed by Dunn post hoc test to find the significant difference for pairwise comparison.
Results: Standardized test specimens belonging to group II (Lucitone 199), bonded to RTV maxillofacial silicone, showed significantly (p = 0.013) greater peel bond strength (0.0372 ± 0.013 MPa) among all the groups. The test specimens of group III (Acralyn H, 0.0213 ± 0.007 MPa), group I (Trevalon, 0.0185 ± 0.009 MPa), and group IV (Acryl Hi, 0.0148 ± 0.007 MPa) showed peel bond strength to RTV silicones in decreasing order.
Conclusion: The high-impact heat-cure acrylic resin (Lucitone 199) had significantly higher bond strength to maxillofacial silicones with the use of a primer than other acrylic resins used in the study. The other two brands of high-impact heat-cure acrylic resins showed comparable peel bond strength to that of conventional heat-cure acrylic resins. Therefore, high-impact heat-cure acrylic resins can be used as alternatives to conventional heat-cure acrylic resins in conjunction with RTV silicones in the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses.
Prakash P, Bahri R, Bhandari SK. Maxillofacial defects: impact on psychology and esthetics. In Beauty Cosmetic Science, Cultural Issues and Creative Developments 2021 May 12. IntechOpen.
Grieder A. Psychologic aspects of prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30(5):736–744. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(73)90224-2
Depprich R, Naujoks C, Lind D, et al. Evaluation of the quality of life of patients with maxillofacial defects after prosthodontic therapy with obturator prostheses. Int journal J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(1): 71–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.09.019
Mitra A, Choudhary S, Garg H, et al. Maxillofacial prosthetic materials-an inclination towards silicones. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(12):ZE08–ZE13. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9229.5244
Kanter JC. The use of RTV silicones in maxillofacial prosthetics. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24(6):646–653. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90101-0
Haddad MF, Goiato MC, Santos DM, et al. Bond strength between acrylic resin and maxillofacial silicone. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20(6): 649–654. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000600010
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):121–126. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.121
Al-Shammari FA. Effect of different primers on the peel bond strength between silicone elastomer and acrylic resins. Br J Med Med Res 2015;8(12):1034–1044. DOI: 10.9734/BJMMR/2015/17897
Karakoca S, Aydin C, Yilmaz H, et al. Retrospective study of treatment outcomes with implant-retained extraoral prostheses: survival rates and prosthetic complications. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(2):118–126. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60015-7
Uzun G, Hersek N. Comparison of the fracture resistance of six denture base acrylic resins. J Biomater Appl 2002;17(1):19–29. DOI: 10.1177/0885328202017001597
Ajaj-Alkordy NM, Alsaadi MH. Elastic modulus and flexural strength comparisons of high-impact and traditional denture base acrylic resins. Saudi Dent J 2014;26(1):15–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2013.12.005
Narendra R, Reddy NS, Reddy SD, et al. A comparative evaluation of impact strength of conventionally heat-cured and high impact heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate denture base resins: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1115–1125. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1461
Raheem Z. (2019). Standard Test Method for Peel Resistance of Adhesives (T-Peel Test) 1.
Hatamleh MM, Watts DC. Bonding of maxillofacial silicone elastomers to an acrylic substrate. Dent Mater 2010;26(4):387–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.01.001
Tanveer W, Wonglamsam A, Tancharoen S, et al. Evaluation of peel bond strength between plexiglas acrylic (PMMA) and maxillofacial silicone using three different primers. M Dent J 2017;37(3):263–272.
Sanohkan S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peampring C. Tensile bond strength of facial silicone and acrylic resin using different primers. J Orofac Sci 2017;9(1):48. DOI: 10.4103/0975-8844.207944
Farooqui R, Aras MA, Chitre V, et al. An in vitro study to compare the influence of two different primers on the peel bond strength between a maxillofacial silicone material and an acrylic resin material versus a composite resin material. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21(3):287–294. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_80_21
Patel H, CM RK, AA P, et al. The effect of primer on bond strength of silicone prosthetic elastomer to polymethylmethacrylate: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(3):ZC38–ZC42. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11217.5704
Mittal M, Anil Kumar S, Sandhu HS, et al. Comparative evaluation of the tensile bond strength of two silicone-based denture liners with denture base resins. Med J Armed Forces India 2016;72(3):258–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.03.004
Chauhan M, Narayan AI, Ginjupalli K, et al. An in vitro evaluation of tensile bond strength of commercially available temporary soft liners to different types of denture base resins. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2018;9(2):263. DOI: 10.4103/jnsbm.JNSBM_38_18
Artopoulou II, Chambers MS, Zinelis S, et al. Peel strength and interfacial characterization of maxillofacial silicone elastomers bonded to titanium. Dent Mater 2016;32(7):e137–e147. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.024
Al-Athel MS, Jagger RG, Jerolimov V. Bond strength of resilient lining materials to various denture base resins. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9(2):167–170.
Wemken G, Burkhardt F, Spies BC, et al. Bond strength of conventional, subtractive, and additive manufactured denture bases to soft and hard relining materials. Dent Mater 2021;37(5):928–938. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.018
O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 2002. Quintessence.