Effect of Different Denture Cleansers on Surface Roughness of Acrylic Denture Base Materials

Author(s):  
Fouad Salama
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amani Ramadan Moussa ◽  
Wessam Mohamed Dehis ◽  
Asmaa Nabil Elboraey ◽  
Hisham Samir ElGabry

AIM: This study aimed to verify the influence of oral environment and denture cleansers on the surface roughness and hardness of two different denture base materials. METHODS: A total of sixteen identical removable disc specimens (RDS) were processed. Eight RDS were made from heat-cured acrylic resin (AR) and the other eight were fabricated from thermoplastic injection moulded resin (TR). Surface roughness and hardness of DRS were measured using ultrasonic profilometry and Universal testing machine respectively. Then the four RDS (two AR and two of TR) were fixed to each maxillary denture, after three months RDS were retrieved. Surface roughness and hardness of RDS have measured again.RESULTS: The surface roughness measurements revealed no significant difference (p >0.05) for both disc groups at baseline. However, both groups showed a significant increase in the surface roughness after three months with higher mean value for (TR) group. On the other hand, the (AR) group showed higher hardness mean value than (TR) group at baseline with no significant decrease in the hardness values (p >0.05) following three months follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Denture cleansers have an effect on the denture’s surface roughness and hardness concurrently with an oral condition which will consequently influence the complete dentures’ lifetime and patients’ satisfaction.


Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 3305
Author(s):  
Pablo Kraemer Fernandez ◽  
Alexey Unkovskiy ◽  
Viola Benkendorff ◽  
Andrea Klink ◽  
Sebastian Spintzyk

(1) Background: To date, no information on the polishability of milled and 3D-printed complete denture bases has been provided, which is relevant in terms of plaque accumulation. (2) Methods: three groups (n = 30) were manufactured using the cold-polymerization polymethilmethacrilate, milling (SM) and 3D printing (AM). 10 specimens of each group were left untreated (reference). 10 more specimens were pre-polished (intermediate polishing) and 10 final specimens were highgloss polished. An additional 20 specimens were 3D printed and coated with the liquid resin (coated), 10 of which were additionally polished (coated + polished). For each group Ra and Rz values, gloss value and REM images were obtained. (3). The “highgloss-polished” specimens showed statistically lower Ra and Rz values in the SM, followed by AM and conventional groups. In the AM group statistically lower surfaces roughness was revealed for highgloss-polished, “coated + polished”, and “coated” specimens, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The milled specimens demonstrated superiors surface characteristics than 3D printed and conventionally produced after polishing. The polished specimens demonstrated superior surface characteristics over coated specimens. However, the surface roughness by both polished and coated specimens was within the clinically relevant threshold of 0.2 µm.


2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-181
Author(s):  
Sabit Melih Ates ◽  
Ipek Caglar ◽  
Alper Ozdogan ◽  
Zeynep Yesil Duymus

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Mohammed M. Gad ◽  
Reem Abualsaud ◽  
Shaimaa M. Fouda ◽  
Ahmed Rahoma ◽  
Ahmad M. Al-Thobity ◽  
...  

Statement of Problem. Novel polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) containing zirconium dioxide nanoparticles (nano-ZrO2) was suggested as a denture base material but there is a lack of information regarding denture cleanser effects. Objectives. This study aimed to evaluate denture cleanser effects on color stability, surface roughness, and hardness of PMMA denture base resin reinforced with nano-ZrO2. Materials and Methods. A total of 420 specimens were fabricated of unreinforced and nano-ZrO2 reinforced acrylic resin at 2.5% and 5%, resulting in 3 main groups. These groups were further subdivided (n = 10) according to immersion solution (distilled water, Corega, sodium hypochlorite, and Renew) and immersion duration. Surface roughness, hardness, and color were measured at baseline (2 days-T0) in distilled water and then after 180 and 365 days of immersion (T1 & T2) in water or denture cleansing solutions. Data was collected and analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results. Surface roughness increased significantly after denture cleanser immersion of unmodified and nano-ZrO2-modified PMMA materials while hardness decreased ( P < 0.001 ). The denture cleansers significantly affected the color of both PMMA denture bases ( P < 0.001 ). The immersion time in denture cleansers significantly affected all tested properties ( P < 0.001 ). Within denture cleansers, NaOCl showed the highest adverse effects ( P < 0.05 ) while Renew showed the least adverse effects. Conclusion. Denture cleansers can significantly result in color change and alter the surface roughness and hardness of denture base resin even with ZrO2 nanoparticles addition. Therefore, they should be carefully used.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farideh Bahrani ◽  
Mahroo Vojdani ◽  
Anahita Safari ◽  
Ghasem Karampoor

ABSTRACT Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate mechanical property hardness and surface roughness (Ra) of different polymerization acrylic resins used for denture bases. Materials and methods A total of 30 specimens were prepared and divided in two groups. A total of 15 samples were processed by the compression molding technique using Meliodent (heatcured). Another 15 samples were processed with cold-cured resin Futura Gen via the injection molding technique. Hardness testing was conducted using a Vickers hardness tester. The Ra test was performed by a profilometer. Data were analyzed using the independent sample t-test and differences were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Results The Vickers hardness numbers (VHN) were 20.8 ± 2.39 for Meliodent and 21.18 ± 1.42 for FuturaGen, which was not significantly different (p > 0.05). The Ra of Meliodent was 0.92 ± 0.23 µm and for FuturaGen it was 0.84 ± 0.37 µm. There were no significant changes in roughness. Conclusion The hardness and Ra of Meliodent and FuturaGen were not significantly different. Therefore, we recommend the use of FuturaGen for manufacturing denture base materials. How to cite this article Bahrani F, Safari A, Vojdani M, Karampoor G. Comparison of Hardness and Surface Roughness of Two Denture bases Polymerized by Different Methods. World J Dent 2012;3(2):171-175.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document