The resilient liners are likewise classified as short-term and long-term liners. The TBS of conventional and CAD/CAM acrylic resins to soft denture liners were not considerably different.ĭenture liners are either classified as hard (often made of polymethylmethacrylate) or resilient. Surface treatment with airborne-particle abrasion demonstrated increased TBS of the soft denture liners to acrylic resins. However, there was no statistically significant difference in bond strength between the acrylic resins materials ( p = 0.739). A significant difference in TBS was observed between the control and surface treated groups ( p < 0.001) for both acrylic resins materials. ANOVA and multiple comparisons posthoc analysis tests were applied to determine the significant difference in TBS between the study groups (α = 0.05). The debonded surfaces were visually examined for the failure modes. The TBS of denture liner to acrylic denture resins was tested in a universal testing apparatus at a 5 mm/min crosshead speed. ![]() Following relining, all the specimens were aged by thermal cycling (1000 cycles, 5–55 ☌). Before relining with denture liner, 12 specimens from each material were surface-treated by 110 µm Al 2O 3 airborne-particle abrasion, and the remaining specimens served as control (no treatment). A total of 48 dumbbell-shaped specimens (70 mm in total length, and 12 mm and 7 mm in diameter at the thickest and thinnest section, respectively) were prepared from CAD/CAM and conventional acrylic resins. ![]() This study aimed to evaluate the airborne-particle abrasion surface treatment effects on the tensile bond strength (TBS) between resilient denture liner and CAD/CAM or conventional heat polymerized poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) acrylic denture resins.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |