Lisa Falland-Cheung1, Nicholas Pittar2, Darryl Tong2, J Neil Waddell2. 1. Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand. falland.ohio@gmail.com. 2. Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of Otago, 310 Great King Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the tear strength and hardness of four different dental silicones in comparison to that of porcine skin. METHODS: Specimens were prepared (n = 20/group) according to ASTM D624-00, using three hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials, one duplication silicone, and fresh porcine skin. A universal testing machine was used to strain each test specimen until complete rupture and calculate its tear strength (kNm(-1)). Failure analysis was then conducted using a stereoscopic zoom light microscope, as well as a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A shore A-type durometer was used to measure the hardness of all specimens. RESULTS: The tear strength for the silicones ranged from 1.75 to 9.58 kNm(-1) and the pigskin from 3.65 to 56.40 kNm(-1). The mean shore hardness for the silicones ranged from 16.275 to 62.65DU and the pigskin had a mean shore hardness of 22.65DU, with p values <0.0125 (0.05/4). Failure analysis of the silicone materials showed the origin of failure being in the tension side of the specimens and typical failure patterns were observed. Examining the materials under a SEM revealed that materials with higher viscosity presented with a larger amount of filler particle content than silicones with low viscosity, with the duplication silicone having no filler content. CONCLUSION: Dental silicones are a good alternative for skin in studies that require a skin simulant.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the tear strength and hardness of four different dental silicones in comparison to that of porcine skin. METHODS: Specimens were prepared (n = 20/group) according to ASTM D624-00, using three hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials, one duplication silicone, and fresh porcine skin. A universal testing machine was used to strain each test specimen until complete rupture and calculate its tear strength (kNm(-1)). Failure analysis was then conducted using a stereoscopic zoom light microscope, as well as a scanning electron microscope (SEM). A shore A-type durometer was used to measure the hardness of all specimens. RESULTS: The tear strength for the silicones ranged from 1.75 to 9.58 kNm(-1) and the pigskin from 3.65 to 56.40 kNm(-1). The mean shore hardness for the silicones ranged from 16.275 to 62.65DU and the pigskin had a mean shore hardness of 22.65DU, with p values <0.0125 (0.05/4). Failure analysis of the silicone materials showed the origin of failure being in the tension side of the specimens and typical failure patterns were observed. Examining the materials under a SEM revealed that materials with higher viscosity presented with a larger amount of filler particle content than silicones with low viscosity, with the duplication silicone having no filler content. CONCLUSION: Dental silicones are a good alternative for skin in studies that require a skin simulant.
Entities:
Keywords:
Forensic head model; Pigskin; Silicone; Skin simulant
Authors: Kelly Whittle; Jules Kieser; Ionut Ichim; Michael Swain; Neil Waddell; Vicki Livingstone; Michael Taylor Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Brittany Wong; Jules A Kieser; Ionut Ichim; Michael Swain; Vicki Livingstone; Neil Waddell; Michael Taylor Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Eugene Y Kissin; Aileen M Schiller; Rondi B Gelbard; Jennifer J Anderson; Vincent Falanga; Robert W Simms; Joseph H Korn; Peter A Merkel Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2006-08-15
Authors: Peter Mahoney; Debra Carr; Richard Arm; Iain Gibb; Nicholas Hunt; Russ J Delaney Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Ka Po Maggie Tang; Kit Lun Yick; Pui Ling Li; Joanne Yip; King Hei Or; Kam Hong Chau Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.576