National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Athens, Greece.
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Dentistry, Department of Operative Dentistry, Athens, Greece.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2021 Mar 26;29:e20200448. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0448. eCollection 2021.
Denture adhesives need complete removal due to their frequent replacement. Our study investigates the removal of denture adhesives from denture base materials, using different methods.
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.
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.
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.
由于义齿黏附剂需要频繁更换,因此需要彻底清除。本研究采用不同方法,研究了从义齿基托材料上去除义齿黏附剂的方法。
使用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)和聚酰胺制作 120 个样本(15×15×1.5mm)。将样本的一侧加工处理,另一侧用常规程序打磨,然后在水中浸泡 24 小时,干燥并称重。将三种黏附剂乳膏(Corega、Olivafix、Fittydent)各 0.2g 涂在未打磨的表面,压在聚硫橡胶上,在 37℃和 95%相对湿度下储存 1 小时,然后将其中 60 个从聚硫橡胶基底上分离下来,在流水下刷洗,其余的则插入清洁剂浴(Fittydent Super)中 5 分钟。将样本干燥并放入烤箱(37℃)中再干燥 10 分钟,然后再次称重。还对义齿材料进行了粗糙度测试,并对黏附剂乳膏进行了光学显微镜检查,以评估材料。此外,还对喷洒在 PMMA 基底上的水基黏附剂的延时图像进行了拍摄,以评估黏附剂的体积变化。使用 Welch 的 ANOVA 和 Games-Howell 多重比较检验,对黏附剂去除前后的重量数据(表明残留黏附剂的量)进行了统计分析,置信水平为 0.05。
聚酰胺的粗糙度高于 PMMA,Fittydent 的体积变化大于其他两种。PMMA 和聚酰胺基底之间、Olivafix 和 Fittydent 黏附剂之间、刷洗和清洁方法之间存在显著差异(p<0.05),但仅在 PMMA-Olivafix 组合中存在差异。
黏附剂与 PMMA 表面的黏附力更强,Fittydent 最难去除。去除方法并非对所有黏附剂或义齿基托材料都有效。这些表明,去除方法、黏附剂类型和义齿基托材料都在从义齿表面去除黏附剂方面发挥了重要作用。