RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Adhesive retention of experimental fiber-reinforced composite, orthodontic acrylic resin, and aliphatic urethane acrylate to silicone elastomer for maxillofacial prostheses Begüm Yerci Kosor, DDS,a Celal Artunç, DDS, PhD,b and Heval S¸ahan, DDS, PhDc Congenital malformations, head-neck surgeries, or traumas can cause maxillofacial deformities that impair esthetics and function.1-3 Facial prostheses enable early rehabilitation and the inspection of the area. They may shorten the surgical and the hospitalization process, reduce the treatment cost, provide early psychosocial reintegration, and improve the appearance of the patient.4 Silicone elastomers that are used in the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses are widely used for their properties of biocompatibility, esthetics, and ability to match skin color.5-8 The silicones used for maxillofacial prostheses are type 2 silicones and are suitable for external use.7 The silicones used for the rehabilitation of large extraoral defects need to be supported by substructures. This support is provided by hard acrylic resin material, dental alloys, or the fiber-reinforced

ABSTRACT Statement of problem. A key factor of an implant-retained facial prosthesis is the success of the bonding between the substructure and the silicone elastomer. Little has been reported on the bonding of fiber reinforced composite (FRC) to silicone elastomers. Experimental FRC could be a solution for facial prostheses supported by light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate, orthodontic acrylic resin, or commercially available FRCs. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bonding of the experimental FRC, orthodontic acrylic resin, and light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate to a commercially available high-temperature vulcanizing silicone elastomer. Material and methods. Shear and 180-degree peel bond strengths of 3 different substructures (experimental FRC, orthodontic acrylic resin, light-activated aliphatic urethane acrylate) (n=15) to a high-temperature vulcanizing maxillofacial silicone elastomer (M511) with a primer (G611) were assessed after 200 hours of accelerated artificial light-aging. The specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 10 mm/min. Data were collected and statistically analyzed by 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Bonferroni correction and the Dunnett post hoc test (a=.05). Modes of failure were visually determined and categorized as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed and were statistically analyzed with the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test (a=.05). Results. As the mean shear bond strength values were evaluated statistically, no difference was found among the experimental FRC, aliphatic urethane acrylate, and orthodontic acrylic resin subgroups (P>.05). The mean peel bond strengths of experimental fiber reinforced composite and aliphatic urethane acrylate were not found to be statistically different (P>.05). The mean value of the orthodontic acrylic resin subgroup peel bond strength was found to be statistically lower (P.05). The mean value of the 180-degree peel strength of the orthodontic acrylic resin group was found to be lower (P

Adhesive retention of experimental fiber-reinforced composite, orthodontic acrylic resin, and aliphatic urethane acrylate to silicone elastomer for maxillofacial prostheses.

A key factor of an implant-retained facial prosthesis is the success of the bonding between the substructure and the silicone elastomer. Little has be...
2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 8 Views