Literature DB >> 15343167

Effect of multi-adhesive layering on retention of extraoral maxillofacial silicone prostheses in vivo.

Sudarat Kiat-Amnuay1, Lawrence Gettleman, L Jane Goldsmith.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Loss of retention of maxillofacial prostheses often makes the margin visible or the prosthesis dislodge. Using several medical adhesives in combination may improve retention.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of single- and multi-adhesive layering of 2 adhesives on the retention of maxillofacial silicone elastomer strips adhered to the skin of human forearms using a peel test.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Power analysis from a previous study and a pilot trial specified at least 20 subjects. Eight Silastic Adhesive A/MDX4-4210 silicone rubber strips (N=240) were applied in a predetermined random order to the left and right ventral forearms of 30 IRB-approved human subjects. Skin-Prep Protective Dressing was applied. Secure 2 Medical Adhesive (SMA) and Epithane-3 (E3) adhesive were used alone or as SMA/E3 or E3/SMA sandwiches (from skin to prosthesis) to adhere strips. Strips were peeled 6 hours later in a universal testing machine at 10 cm/min and data reported in N/m. Paired t tests were used to evaluate left and right arm differences. A Friedman test for nonparametric correlated data with within-subject design was performed, determining differences between both adhesives singly and in combination (alpha=.05).
RESULTS: Tests of left-right differences were insignificant ( P =0.43), so the data from both arms were combined. Many strips with E3 did not adhere before testing and were counted as 0 adhesion. Median peel strengths (and 25th and 75th percentiles) in N/m were: SMA = 76.1 (47.1-107), E3 = 6.75 (0.0-25.9), SMA/E3 = 107 (78.0-132), and E3/SMA= 19.6 (6.99-42.4). All 4 variables were significantly different ( P <.0005).
CONCLUSION: The multi-adhesive combination of SMA/E3 had the highest adhesion, followed, in order, by SMA alone, E3/ SMA, and E3 alone. Both E3 groups left a difficult-to-remove residue on the skin. SMA/E3 left a halo-like residue on the skin at the periphery of the strips from the E3 leaking around the SMA. SMA remained adherent to the prosthetic material.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15343167     DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthet Dent        ISSN: 0022-3913            Impact factor:   3.426


  4 in total

1.  [The biological safety evaluation of a new developed silicone rubber for inflatable silastic prosthesis].

Authors:  Tian Ai; Liang Xing; Liao Jian; Sun Xu; Teng Minhua; Zhang Li; Chen Yue
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2014-12

Review 2.  Prosthetics in Facial Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jaclyn Klimczak; Samuel Helman; Sameep Kadakia; Raja Sawhney; Manoj Abraham; Allison K Vest; Yadranko Ducic
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2017-05-22

Review 3.  Osseointegrated Implants and Prosthetic Reconstruction Following Skull Base Surgery.

Authors:  Shirley Hu; Demetri Arnaoutakis; Sameep Kadakia; Allison Vest; Raja Sawhney; Yadranko Ducic
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.314

4.  Preparation of an adhesive in emulsion for maxillofacial prosthetic.

Authors:  Judith A Sánchez-García; Alejandra Ortega; Federico H Barceló-Santana; Joaquín Palacios-Alquisira
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 5.923

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.