Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Polychronakis, Nick
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Sykaras, Nikitas, Polyzois, Gregory, Lagouvardos, Panagiotis
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/187208
Resumo: Denture adhesives need complete removal due to their frequent replacement. Objective: Our study investigates the removal of denture adhesives from denture base materials, using different methods. Methodology: PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials were used to fabricate 120 samples (15×15×1.5mm). One side of the samples was left as processed and the other polished with a usual procedure, hydrated for 24 h, dried, and weighted. They received 0.2 g of three adhesive creams on their unpolished surface (Corega, Olivafix, Fittydent), pressed on polysulfide material, stored under 37°C and 95% rel. humidity for 1 h and 60 of them, following their separation from polysulfide base, brushed under running water, whereas the rest inserted in a cleanser bath (Fittydent Super) for 5 min. The samples were dried and inserted in the oven (37°C) for additional 10 min and weighted again. Roughness tests of denture materials and light microscopy of adhesives creams were also used to evaluate the materials. Time lapse images of spayed with water adhesives on PMMA base were also taken to evaluate the volumetric changes of adhesives. Weight data before and after adhesive removal, indicating the amount of remaining adhesive, were statistically analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell multiple comparisons tests at α=0.05 level of significance. Results: Roughness of Polyamide was higher than PMMA and Fittydent showed greater volumetric changes than the others. Significant differences (p<0.05), were found between PMMA and Polyamide bases, between Olivafix and Fittydent adhesives, and between brushing and cleansing methods but only for PMMA-Olivafix combination. Conclusions: Adhesives showed a stronger adherence to PMMA surface, and Fittydent was the most difficult to be removed. Removal methods were not effective for all adhesives or denture base materials. These indicate that removal methods, adhesive type and denture base material are all playing a significant role in the removal of adhesives from denture surfaces.
id USP-17_c5e630024957b05132ca6d59441f4909
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/187208
network_acronym_str USP-17
network_name_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materialsDenture adhesivesDenture cleansersRemoval methodsPMMAPolyamideDenture adhesives need complete removal due to their frequent replacement. Objective: Our study investigates the removal of denture adhesives from denture base materials, using different methods. Methodology: PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials were used to fabricate 120 samples (15×15×1.5mm). One side of the samples was left as processed and the other polished with a usual procedure, hydrated for 24 h, dried, and weighted. They received 0.2 g of three adhesive creams on their unpolished surface (Corega, Olivafix, Fittydent), pressed on polysulfide material, stored under 37°C and 95% rel. humidity for 1 h and 60 of them, following their separation from polysulfide base, brushed under running water, whereas the rest inserted in a cleanser bath (Fittydent Super) for 5 min. The samples were dried and inserted in the oven (37°C) for additional 10 min and weighted again. Roughness tests of denture materials and light microscopy of adhesives creams were also used to evaluate the materials. Time lapse images of spayed with water adhesives on PMMA base were also taken to evaluate the volumetric changes of adhesives. Weight data before and after adhesive removal, indicating the amount of remaining adhesive, were statistically analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell multiple comparisons tests at α=0.05 level of significance. Results: Roughness of Polyamide was higher than PMMA and Fittydent showed greater volumetric changes than the others. Significant differences (p<0.05), were found between PMMA and Polyamide bases, between Olivafix and Fittydent adhesives, and between brushing and cleansing methods but only for PMMA-Olivafix combination. Conclusions: Adhesives showed a stronger adherence to PMMA surface, and Fittydent was the most difficult to be removed. Removal methods were not effective for all adhesives or denture base materials. These indicate that removal methods, adhesive type and denture base material are all playing a significant role in the removal of adhesives from denture surfaces.Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru2021-06-14info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/18720810.1590/1678-7757-2020-0448Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 29 (2021); e20200448Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 29 (2021); e20200448Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 29 (2021); e202004481678-77651678-7757reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/187208/173013Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Applied Oral Sciencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPolychronakis, NickSykaras, NikitasPolyzois, GregoryLagouvardos, Panagiotis2021-06-14T21:27:29Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/187208Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jaosPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/oai||jaos@usp.br1678-77651678-7757opendoar:2021-06-14T21:27:29Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
title Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
spellingShingle Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
Polychronakis, Nick
Denture adhesives
Denture cleansers
Removal methods
PMMA
Polyamide
title_short Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
title_full Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
title_fullStr Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
title_full_unstemmed Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
title_sort Removal of denture adhesives from PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials
author Polychronakis, Nick
author_facet Polychronakis, Nick
Sykaras, Nikitas
Polyzois, Gregory
Lagouvardos, Panagiotis
author_role author
author2 Sykaras, Nikitas
Polyzois, Gregory
Lagouvardos, Panagiotis
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Polychronakis, Nick
Sykaras, Nikitas
Polyzois, Gregory
Lagouvardos, Panagiotis
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Denture adhesives
Denture cleansers
Removal methods
PMMA
Polyamide
topic Denture adhesives
Denture cleansers
Removal methods
PMMA
Polyamide
description Denture adhesives need complete removal due to their frequent replacement. Objective: Our study investigates the removal of denture adhesives from denture base materials, using different methods. Methodology: PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials were used to fabricate 120 samples (15×15×1.5mm). One side of the samples was left as processed and the other polished with a usual procedure, hydrated for 24 h, dried, and weighted. They received 0.2 g of three adhesive creams on their unpolished surface (Corega, Olivafix, Fittydent), pressed on polysulfide material, stored under 37°C and 95% rel. humidity for 1 h and 60 of them, following their separation from polysulfide base, brushed under running water, whereas the rest inserted in a cleanser bath (Fittydent Super) for 5 min. The samples were dried and inserted in the oven (37°C) for additional 10 min and weighted again. Roughness tests of denture materials and light microscopy of adhesives creams were also used to evaluate the materials. Time lapse images of spayed with water adhesives on PMMA base were also taken to evaluate the volumetric changes of adhesives. Weight data before and after adhesive removal, indicating the amount of remaining adhesive, were statistically analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell multiple comparisons tests at α=0.05 level of significance. Results: Roughness of Polyamide was higher than PMMA and Fittydent showed greater volumetric changes than the others. Significant differences (p<0.05), were found between PMMA and Polyamide bases, between Olivafix and Fittydent adhesives, and between brushing and cleansing methods but only for PMMA-Olivafix combination. Conclusions: Adhesives showed a stronger adherence to PMMA surface, and Fittydent was the most difficult to be removed. Removal methods were not effective for all adhesives or denture base materials. These indicate that removal methods, adhesive type and denture base material are all playing a significant role in the removal of adhesives from denture surfaces.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-06-14
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/187208
10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0448
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/187208
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0448
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/187208/173013
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Applied Oral Science
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Applied Oral Science
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 29 (2021); e20200448
Journal of Applied Oral Science; Vol. 29 (2021); e20200448
Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 29 (2021); e20200448
1678-7765
1678-7757
reponame:Journal of applied oral science (Online)
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Journal of applied oral science (Online)
collection Journal of applied oral science (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of applied oral science (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jaos@usp.br
_version_ 1800221681256497152