M G Waters1, R G Jagger, G L Polyzois. 1. Department of Basic Dental Science, Dental School, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillofacial prosthetic materials that contact skin or mucosa should have good wettability. A material that is easily wetted will form a superior lubricating layer between the supporting tissues and, thus, reduce friction and patient discomfort. The surface energy of a maxillofacial prosthetic material will give an indication of the amount of energy available for adhesion and of the susceptibility of the material to bacterial adhesion. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the wettability and surface energies of a range of commercially available silicone rubber maxillofacial prosthetic materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Contact angles and surface energies were measured by using a dynamic contact angle measuring technique. Four commonly used silicone maxillofacial materials were tested and their properties compared with those of an acrylic resin denture base material and a widely used denture soft lining material. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the wettability of the silicone rubber materials. All materials were significantly less wetted than the denture acrylic resin material. There were no significant differences in the surface energies of the silicone rubber materials, but all were significantly lower than denture acrylic resin material. CONCLUSIONS: The Cahn dynamic contact angle analyzer was a quick and reproducible method for determining the contact angles and surface energies of maxillofacial materials. Further work is needed to improve the wettability of silicone rubber materials used for maxillofacial prostheses, thus, reducing their potential to produce friction with tissues.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Maxillofacial prosthetic materials that contact skin or mucosa should have good wettability. A material that is easily wetted will form a superior lubricating layer between the supporting tissues and, thus, reduce friction and patient discomfort. The surface energy of a maxillofacial prosthetic material will give an indication of the amount of energy available for adhesion and of the susceptibility of the material to bacterial adhesion. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the wettability and surface energies of a range of commercially available silicone rubber maxillofacial prosthetic materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Contact angles and surface energies were measured by using a dynamic contact angle measuring technique. Four commonly used silicone maxillofacial materials were tested and their properties compared with those of an acrylic resin denture base material and a widely used denture soft lining material. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the wettability of the silicone rubber materials. All materials were significantly less wetted than the denture acrylic resin material. There were no significant differences in the surface energies of the silicone rubber materials, but all were significantly lower than denture acrylic resin material. CONCLUSIONS: The Cahn dynamic contact angle analyzer was a quick and reproducible method for determining the contact angles and surface energies of maxillofacial materials. Further work is needed to improve the wettability of silicone rubber materials used for maxillofacial prostheses, thus, reducing their potential to produce friction with tissues.