| Literature DB >> 34947803 |
Abdulaziz Alhotan1,2, Julian Yates1, Saleh Zidan3, Julfikar Haider1,4, Carlos Alberto Jurado5, Nikolaos Silikas1.
Abstract
When PMMA denture base acrylics are exposed to oral environments for prolonged periods, the denture base absorbs water, which has a negative influence on the denture material and the degree to which the denture base will be clinically effective. This study assessed the water sorption, desorption, and hygroscopic expansion processes within PMMA denture-base resins reinforced with nanoparticles or fibre in comparison to the non-reinforced PMMA. The surfaces of the fillers were modified using a silane coupling agent (y-MPS) before mixing with PMMA. Group C consisted of specimens of pure PMMA whereas groups Z, T, and E consisted of PMMA specimens reinforced with ZrO2, TiO2 nanoparticles, or E-glass fibre, respectively. The reinforced groups were subdivided into four subgroups according to the percentage filler added to the PMMA resin by weight (1.5%, 3.0%, 5.0%, or 7.0%). Five specimens in disc shape (25 ± 1 mm × 2.0 ± 0.2 mm) were tested for each group. To assess water sorption and hygroscopic expansion, specimens from each group were individually immersed in water at 37 ± 1 °C for 180 days. The samples were then desorbed for 28 days at 37 ± 1 °C, to measure solubility. Water sorption and solubility were calculated using an electronic balance in accordance with ISO Standard 20795-1, and hygroscopic expansion was measured using a laser micrometre. Statistical analysis was undertaken at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level using a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests. The results demonstrated that the values of sorption (Wsp), mass sorption (Ms%), and % expansion within the tested groups reached equilibrium within 180 days. A noticeable difference was observed in groups Z and E for (Wsp)/(Ms%) compared to the Group C, but this was not significant. However, the difference between Group C and Group T for these measurements was significant. Non-significant differences also existed between each respective reinforced group and the control group in terms of hygroscopic expansion % values. During the 28-day desorption period, there were no differences in the values of solubility (Wsl)/mass desorption (Md%) between Group C and each of the reinforced tested groups. The findings indicate that the inclusion of ZrO2 nanoparticles or E-glass fibres does not increase the water solubility/sorption of the PMMA. However, modifying the PMMA with TiO2 did significantly increase the water sorption level.Entities:
Keywords: PMMA denture base; e-glass fibre; hygroscopic expansion; solubility; sorption; titania (TiO2); zirconia (ZrO2)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34947803 PMCID: PMC8707186 DOI: 10.3390/nano11123453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Water sorption (Wsp), sorption mass change (Ms%) and hygroscopic expansion (%) after immersion period of 180 days in distilled water; Water solubility (Wsl) and desorption mass change (Md%) after 28 days desorption for all tested groups presented as means and standard deviations.
| Materials Group | Wsp (µg/mm3) | Ms% | Wsl (µg/mm3) | Md% | Hygroscopic Expansion (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | C | 31.6 (4.9) ac | 2.84 (0.48) ac | 0.27 (0.17) abc | −0.024 (0.016) abc | 1.49 (0.18) abc |
| ZrO2 | Z%1.5 | 31.1 (6.8) a | 2.87 (0.68) a | 0.15 (0.13) a | −0.014 (0.012) a | 1.38 (0.29) a |
| Z%3 | 32.0 (5.3) a | 2.84 (0.51) a | 0.13 (0.48) a | −0.011 (0.004) a | 1.41 (0.20) a | |
| Z%5 | 30.9 (5.8) a | 2.73 (0.55) a | 0.14 (0.17) a | −0.013 (0.015) a | 1.43 (0.26) a | |
| Z%7 | 27.9 (3.6) a | 2.44 (0.32) a | 0.13 (0.07) a | −0.012 (0.006) a | 1.25 (0.16) a | |
| TiO2 | T%1.5 | 35.6 (0.7) b | 3.33 (0.08) b | 0.22 (0.20) b | −0.021 (0.020) b | 1.53 (0.33) b |
| T%3 | 35.9 (0.7) b | 3.29 (0.09) b | 0.16 (0.17) b | −0.015 (0.017) b | 1.62 (0.37) b | |
| T%5 | 37.8 (0.5) b | 3.43 (0.08) b | 0.12 (0.15) b | −0.011 (0.014) b | 1.65 (0.25) b | |
| T%7 | 38.5 (0.7) b | 3.44 (0.07) b | 0.11 (0.06) b | −0.010 (0.005) b | 1.66 (0.41) b | |
| E-glass fibre | E%1.5 | 29.6 (6.2) c | 2.65 (0.64) c | 0.26 (0.32) c | −0.023 (0.027) c | 1.22 (0.11) c |
| E%3 | 30.0 (6.4) c | 2.64 (0.68) c | 0.30 (0.06) c | −0.026 (0.005) c | 1.23 (0.08) c | |
| E%5 | 27.7 (3.3) c | 2.32 (0.26) c | 0.33 (0.13) c | −0.028 (0.011) c | 1.24 (0.12) c | |
| E%7 | 31.9 (5.0) c | 2.76 (0.49) c | 0.43 (0.11) c | −0.037 (0.009) c | 1.26 (0.11) c | |
Note: Same superscript letter within column represents non-significant difference between each filler reinforced group and control group (p > 0.05).
Figure 1Line graph illustrating the mass change and hygroscopic expansion of each respective tested group with control group (A) mass change for Z group, (B) volumetric change for Z group, (C) mass change for T group, (D) volumetric change for T group, (E) mass change for E group, (F) volumetric change for E group.