Loading…

Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study

Aim: The bonding between acrylic resin to silicone liners in maxillofacial devices is vital for the maintenance of prosthetic parts. This study aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments in enhancing the bond between materials used in maxillofacial prosthetics, w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of international oral health 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.63-68
Main Authors: Ahmed, Ali, Kamil, Saif, Arab, Luma
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-4069e33576f6deb0bd3634fde6e2037317a0f356c590900e48f3caa38f5576773
container_end_page 68
container_issue 1
container_start_page 63
container_title Journal of international oral health
container_volume 16
creator Ahmed, Ali
Kamil, Saif
Arab, Luma
description Aim: The bonding between acrylic resin to silicone liners in maxillofacial devices is vital for the maintenance of prosthetic parts. This study aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments in enhancing the bond between materials used in maxillofacial prosthetics, which is crucial to ensure both quality and durability in prosthetic applications. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study involves the fabrication of 30 specimens, with each specimen involving an acrylic part bonded to a silicone part. Each specimen measures 75 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 6 mm in thickness. These dimensions are controlled and standardized for consistency. The study includes a total of 30 specimens, which represent the sample size, and it is divided into three groups (ethyl acetate, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and silicon carbide [SiC] paper), with each group having 10. Subsequently, the peel bonding strength was tested using a universal testing machine. All data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests at a level of α = 0.05. Results: Surface-treated specimens with ethyl acetate had the highest peel strength (PS) values (3.4138) followed by those treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting (2.3204) and SiC paper (1.8153), respectively. Conclusions: Surface treatment showed a varying impact on the PS of different materials. The ethyl acetate group benefited the most from the treatment, the sandblasting group experienced a moderate improvement, and the SiC group had the least improvement in peel bond strength. Graphical Abstract {Figure 3}
doi_str_mv 10.4103/jioh.jioh_201_23
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3144373405</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A788332155</galeid><sourcerecordid>A788332155</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-4069e33576f6deb0bd3634fde6e2037317a0f356c590900e48f3caa38f5576773</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1r3DAQxU1ooSHNvUdBILfdjj2SZfe2hH4EArmkZ6GVR7EWW9pKctL891E2OWygVALNMPzek0Cvqr7UsOY14NedC-P65VAN1KrBk-oUetmuatn3H956yZvuU3We0g7KaqHhXJxWfzcpUUoz-cyCZXuiiW2DH1jKkfx9HtmW8iORZ_kxMKuN0xPbx5DySNkZNutMscwS07Z0LC2xQMSKWueD60x5DEP6xq49e3A5hmK9DE-fq4-2yOj8rZ5Vv398v7v6tbq5_Xl9tblZGRSQVxzanhCFbG070Ba2A7bI7UAtNYASa6nBomiN6KEHIN5ZNFpjZ0XRSIln1cWrb3n0n4VSVruwRF-uVFhzXiw4iP9SgD2Inosj6l5PpJy3IUdtZpeM2siuQ2zqA7X-B1X2QLMzwZN1Zf5OcHkkGElPeUxhWrILPr0H4RU05QNSJKv20c06Pqka1EsQ1CEDR0HAZ6wapuM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3039059455</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study</title><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess)</source><creator>Ahmed, Ali ; Kamil, Saif ; Arab, Luma</creator><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Ali ; Kamil, Saif ; Arab, Luma</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: The bonding between acrylic resin to silicone liners in maxillofacial devices is vital for the maintenance of prosthetic parts. This study aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments in enhancing the bond between materials used in maxillofacial prosthetics, which is crucial to ensure both quality and durability in prosthetic applications. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study involves the fabrication of 30 specimens, with each specimen involving an acrylic part bonded to a silicone part. Each specimen measures 75 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 6 mm in thickness. These dimensions are controlled and standardized for consistency. The study includes a total of 30 specimens, which represent the sample size, and it is divided into three groups (ethyl acetate, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and silicon carbide [SiC] paper), with each group having 10. Subsequently, the peel bonding strength was tested using a universal testing machine. All data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests at a level of α = 0.05. Results: Surface-treated specimens with ethyl acetate had the highest peel strength (PS) values (3.4138) followed by those treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting (2.3204) and SiC paper (1.8153), respectively. Conclusions: Surface treatment showed a varying impact on the PS of different materials. The ethyl acetate group benefited the most from the treatment, the sandblasting group experienced a moderate improvement, and the SiC group had the least improvement in peel bond strength. Graphical Abstract {Figure 3}</description><identifier>ISSN: 0976-7428</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0976-1799</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_201_23</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Mumbai: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Acetic acid ; Aluminum ; Aluminum oxide ; Bond strength ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentures ; Ethyl acetate ; Maxillofacial ; Maxillofacial surgery ; Prostheses ; Prosthetics ; Silicon carbide ; Silicones</subject><ispartof>Journal of international oral health, 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.63-68</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-4069e33576f6deb0bd3634fde6e2037317a0f356c590900e48f3caa38f5576773</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamil, Saif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arab, Luma</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study</title><title>Journal of international oral health</title><description>Aim: The bonding between acrylic resin to silicone liners in maxillofacial devices is vital for the maintenance of prosthetic parts. This study aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments in enhancing the bond between materials used in maxillofacial prosthetics, which is crucial to ensure both quality and durability in prosthetic applications. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study involves the fabrication of 30 specimens, with each specimen involving an acrylic part bonded to a silicone part. Each specimen measures 75 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 6 mm in thickness. These dimensions are controlled and standardized for consistency. The study includes a total of 30 specimens, which represent the sample size, and it is divided into three groups (ethyl acetate, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and silicon carbide [SiC] paper), with each group having 10. Subsequently, the peel bonding strength was tested using a universal testing machine. All data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests at a level of α = 0.05. Results: Surface-treated specimens with ethyl acetate had the highest peel strength (PS) values (3.4138) followed by those treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting (2.3204) and SiC paper (1.8153), respectively. Conclusions: Surface treatment showed a varying impact on the PS of different materials. The ethyl acetate group benefited the most from the treatment, the sandblasting group experienced a moderate improvement, and the SiC group had the least improvement in peel bond strength. Graphical Abstract {Figure 3}</description><subject>Acetic acid</subject><subject>Aluminum</subject><subject>Aluminum oxide</subject><subject>Bond strength</subject><subject>Dental restorative materials</subject><subject>Dentures</subject><subject>Ethyl acetate</subject><subject>Maxillofacial</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>Silicon carbide</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><issn>0976-7428</issn><issn>0976-1799</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9ks1r3DAQxU1ooSHNvUdBILfdjj2SZfe2hH4EArmkZ6GVR7EWW9pKctL891E2OWygVALNMPzek0Cvqr7UsOY14NedC-P65VAN1KrBk-oUetmuatn3H956yZvuU3We0g7KaqHhXJxWfzcpUUoz-cyCZXuiiW2DH1jKkfx9HtmW8iORZ_kxMKuN0xPbx5DySNkZNutMscwS07Z0LC2xQMSKWueD60x5DEP6xq49e3A5hmK9DE-fq4-2yOj8rZ5Vv398v7v6tbq5_Xl9tblZGRSQVxzanhCFbG070Ba2A7bI7UAtNYASa6nBomiN6KEHIN5ZNFpjZ0XRSIln1cWrb3n0n4VSVruwRF-uVFhzXiw4iP9SgD2Inosj6l5PpJy3IUdtZpeM2siuQ2zqA7X-B1X2QLMzwZN1Zf5OcHkkGElPeUxhWrILPr0H4RU05QNSJKv20c06Pqka1EsQ1CEDR0HAZ6wapuM</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>Ahmed, Ali</creator><creator>Kamil, Saif</creator><creator>Arab, Luma</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>04Q</scope><scope>04T</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study</title><author>Ahmed, Ali ; Kamil, Saif ; Arab, Luma</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-4069e33576f6deb0bd3634fde6e2037317a0f356c590900e48f3caa38f5576773</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Acetic acid</topic><topic>Aluminum</topic><topic>Aluminum oxide</topic><topic>Bond strength</topic><topic>Dental restorative materials</topic><topic>Dentures</topic><topic>Ethyl acetate</topic><topic>Maxillofacial</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>Silicon carbide</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamil, Saif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arab, Luma</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>India Database</collection><collection>India Database: Health &amp; Medicine</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Journal of international oral health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ahmed, Ali</au><au>Kamil, Saif</au><au>Arab, Luma</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international oral health</jtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>68</epage><pages>63-68</pages><issn>0976-7428</issn><eissn>0976-1799</eissn><abstract>Aim: The bonding between acrylic resin to silicone liners in maxillofacial devices is vital for the maintenance of prosthetic parts. This study aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of different surface treatments in enhancing the bond between materials used in maxillofacial prosthetics, which is crucial to ensure both quality and durability in prosthetic applications. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study involves the fabrication of 30 specimens, with each specimen involving an acrylic part bonded to a silicone part. Each specimen measures 75 mm in length, 10 mm in width, and 6 mm in thickness. These dimensions are controlled and standardized for consistency. The study includes a total of 30 specimens, which represent the sample size, and it is divided into three groups (ethyl acetate, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and silicon carbide [SiC] paper), with each group having 10. Subsequently, the peel bonding strength was tested using a universal testing machine. All data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests at a level of α = 0.05. Results: Surface-treated specimens with ethyl acetate had the highest peel strength (PS) values (3.4138) followed by those treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting (2.3204) and SiC paper (1.8153), respectively. Conclusions: Surface treatment showed a varying impact on the PS of different materials. The ethyl acetate group benefited the most from the treatment, the sandblasting group experienced a moderate improvement, and the SiC group had the least improvement in peel bond strength. Graphical Abstract {Figure 3}</abstract><cop>Mumbai</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><doi>10.4103/jioh.jioh_201_23</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0976-7428
ispartof Journal of international oral health, 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.63-68
issn 0976-7428
0976-1799
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_3144373405
source Medknow Open Access Medical Journals(OpenAccess)
subjects Acetic acid
Aluminum
Aluminum oxide
Bond strength
Dental restorative materials
Dentures
Ethyl acetate
Maxillofacial
Maxillofacial surgery
Prostheses
Prosthetics
Silicon carbide
Silicones
title Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthetic materials after surface treatment methods: In vitro study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T17%3A34%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20peel%20bond%20strength%20between%20two%20facial%20prosthetic%20materials%20after%20surface%20treatment%20methods:%20In%20vitro%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20oral%20health&rft.au=Ahmed,%20Ali&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=68&rft.pages=63-68&rft.issn=0976-7428&rft.eissn=0976-1799&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/jioh.jioh_201_23&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA788332155%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-4069e33576f6deb0bd3634fde6e2037317a0f356c590900e48f3caa38f5576773%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3039059455&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A788332155&rfr_iscdi=true