A Baysan1, S Parker, P S Wright. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, St. Bartholomew's and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, United Kingdom.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Construction of dentures with permanent soft linings is time-consuming in the laboratory and extra costs are related to equipment and materials used. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether using microwave energy to activate the polymerization of a silicone rubber denture soft lining material affected its properties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tear energy and adhesive properties were measured in a tensile testing machine by using a pants leg tear test and peel specimens. Tear energy was measured for specimens polymerized conventionally (control) and for 3, 5, and 10 minutes in a microwave. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and a two-sample Student t test. RESULTS: The multiple comparison test failed to show a significant difference in tear energy between 3 minutes microwave activation and conventional heat curing. However, 3 minutes microwave activation revealed a significantly stronger material when compared with 5 minutes and 10 minutes (p < 0.05). Application of a two-sample Student t test failed to demonstrate a significant difference between microwave energy and conventional heat activation groups in the adhesion test. In adhesion testing, all specimens presented cohesive failure. CONCLUSIONS: This method of polymerization does not compromise the strength of a soft lining material and its adhesion to polymethyl methacrylate. This study suggests the use of 3 minutes 650 W microwave energy for processing a silicone soft lining material.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Construction of dentures with permanent soft linings is time-consuming in the laboratory and extra costs are related to equipment and materials used. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether using microwave energy to activate the polymerization of a silicone rubber denture soft lining material affected its properties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tear energy and adhesive properties were measured in a tensile testing machine by using a pants leg tear test and peel specimens. Tear energy was measured for specimens polymerized conventionally (control) and for 3, 5, and 10 minutes in a microwave. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and a two-sample Student t test. RESULTS: The multiple comparison test failed to show a significant difference in tear energy between 3 minutes microwave activation and conventional heat curing. However, 3 minutes microwave activation revealed a significantly stronger material when compared with 5 minutes and 10 minutes (p < 0.05). Application of a two-sample Student t test failed to demonstrate a significant difference between microwave energy and conventional heat activation groups in the adhesion test. In adhesion testing, all specimens presented cohesive failure. CONCLUSIONS: This method of polymerization does not compromise the strength of a soft lining material and its adhesion to polymethyl methacrylate. This study suggests the use of 3 minutes 650 W microwave energy for processing a silicone soft lining material.