Hatamleh Muhanad M, Polyzois Gregory L, Nuseir Amjad, Hatamleh Khaldoun, Alnazzawi Ahmad
Cranio-Maxillofacial Prosthetics Unit, King's College Hospital, King's College London Denmark Hill Campus, London, UK.
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens, Greece.
J Prosthodont. 2016 Jul;25(5):418-26. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12409. Epub 2016 Jan 24.
To identify and discuss the findings of publications on mechanical behavior of maxillofacial prosthetic materials published since 1969.
Original experimental articles reporting on mechanical properties of maxillofacial prosthetic materials were included. A two-stage search of the literature, electronic and hand search, identified relevant published studies up to May 2015. An extensive electronic search was conducted of databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Included primary studies (n = 63) reported on tensile strength, tear strength, and hardness of maxillofacial prosthetic materials at baseline and after aging.
The search revealed 63 papers, with more than 28 papers being published in the past 10 years, which shows an increased number of publications when compared to only 6 papers published in the 1970s. The increase is linear with significant correlation (r = 0.85). Such an increase reflects great awareness and continued developments and warrants more research in the field of maxillofacial prosthetic materials properties; however, it is difficult to directly compare results, as studies varied in maxillofacial prosthetic materials tested with various silicone elastomers being heavily investigated, standards followed in preparing test specimens, experimental testing protocols, and parameters used in setting simulated aging conditionings.
It is imperative to overcome the existing variability by establishing unified national or international standards/specifications for maxillofacial prosthetic materials. Standardization organizations or bodies, the scientific community, and academia need to be coordinated to achieve this goal. In the meantime and despite all of these theoretically significant alternatives, clinical practice still faces problems with serviceability of maxillofacial prostheses.
识别并讨论自1969年以来发表的关于颌面修复材料力学行为的出版物的研究结果。
纳入报道颌面修复材料力学性能的原创实验性文章。通过电子检索和手工检索两个阶段的文献检索,确定截至2015年5月的相关已发表研究。对包括PubMed、Embase、Scopus和谷歌学术在内的数据库进行了广泛的电子检索。纳入的主要研究(n = 63)报告了颌面修复材料在基线和老化后的拉伸强度、撕裂强度和硬度。
检索发现63篇论文,其中超过28篇是在过去10年发表的,与20世纪70年代仅发表6篇论文相比,出版物数量有所增加。这种增加呈线性且具有显著相关性(r = 0.85)。这种增加反映了人们对颌面修复材料性能领域的高度关注和持续发展,值得在该领域进行更多研究;然而,由于研究在测试的颌面修复材料、大量研究的各种硅橡胶弹性体、制备测试标本所遵循的标准、实验测试方案以及设置模拟老化条件时使用的参数等方面存在差异,因此难以直接比较结果。
必须通过为颌面修复材料建立统一的国家或国际标准/规范来克服现有的变异性。需要协调标准化组织或机构、科学界和学术界来实现这一目标。与此同时,尽管有所有这些理论上重要的替代方案,但临床实践中颌面修复体的适用性仍然面临问题。