Former Prosthodontic Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand; and Former AEGD Preceptor, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Dentistry, Houston, Texas.
Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand; and Former AEGD Resident, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Dentistry, Houston, Texas.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 May;131(5):980.e1-980.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.02.011. Epub 2024 Mar 6.
The choice of cleaning method is an important consideration for lengthening the serviceable time of facial prostheses as microbial organisms and biofilms could degrade facial prostheses and cause skin irritation. Whether microwave disinfection is a suitable cleaning method without degradation of the properties of a prosthesis is unclear.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the color stability of 6 commonly used facial silicone elastomers after microwave disinfection over a simulated 1.5-year period.
Six different facial silicone elastomers: MDX4-4210, MDX4-4210/Type A, M511, A-2186, VST-50, and A-2000 were mixed with intrinsic silicone white opacifier (except for the control group) and subsequently combined with 4 silicone intrinsic pigment color groups: red (R), yellow (Y), burnt sienna (B), and a mixture of R+Y+B (M). The control group was a silicone elastomer without opacifier or pigment. Each of the 30 experimental groups consisted of 5 specimens (N=150). Five specimens were placed in a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask filled with 160 mL of tap water. Seven flasks were then placed in a 660-W microwave oven. An exposure of 6 minutes was used according to the antimicrobial efficacy of microwave disinfection protocol on facial silicone prostheses with a final water temperature of 60 °C for 18 times (simulating 1.5 years of microwave disinfection with one 6-minute exposure monthly). A spectrophotometer was used to measure reflectance color change values (∆E). Color differences were calculated following CIELab (∆E*) and CIEDE2000 (∆E00) formulae. ∆E* and ∆E00 were statistically analyzed by a linear mixed effects model with 3 factors (silicone type, color shade, and time) using the R Statistical software program (α=.05).
Both ∆E* and ∆E00 of all silicone elastomers studied were less than the visual perceptibility thresholds (∆E*<1.1 and E00<0.7) and were considered clinically acceptable (∆E*<3.0 and E00<2.1) after the 1.5-year simulation of microwave disinfection. Yellow and blue pigments had more effect on MDX4-4210 and M511, while red pigment had more effect on MDX4-4210, MDX4-4210/Type A, and M511 (P<.05). Nevertheless, the values were still below the perceptibility threshold (∆E*≤1.0 and E00<0.6).
All 6 facial silicone elastomers maintained clinically acceptable color after 18 months of exposure to microwave disinfection.
清洁方法的选择对面部修复体的使用寿命至关重要，因为微生物和生物膜会降解面部修复体并引起皮肤刺激。微波消毒是否是一种不会降低修复体性能的合适清洁方法尚不清楚。
本体外研究的目的是测量在模拟的 1.5 年内，6 种常用面部硅橡胶弹性体经过微波消毒后的颜色稳定性。
将 6 种不同的面部硅橡胶弹性体：MDX4-4210、MDX4-4210/Type A、M511、A-2186、VST-50 和 A-2000 与内在硅酮白色不透明剂混合（对照组除外），随后与 4 种硅酮内在颜料颜色组结合：红色（R）、黄色（Y）、棕褐色（B）和 R+Y+B 的混合物（M）。对照组为不含不透明剂或颜料的硅橡胶弹性体。每组实验由 5 个样本组成（N=150）。将 5 个样本放置在装有 160 毫升自来水的 250 毫升锥形瓶中。然后将 7 个锥形瓶放入 660 瓦的微波炉中。根据面部硅橡胶修复体的抗菌功效协议，使用 6 分钟的暴露时间，最终水温为 60°C，共进行 18 次（模拟每月 1 次 6 分钟暴露的微波消毒 1.5 年）。使用分光光度计测量反射率颜色变化值（∆E）。使用 CIELab（∆E*）和 CIEDE2000（∆E00）公式计算色差。使用 R 统计软件程序（α=.05），通过具有 3 个因素（硅酮类型、颜色色调和时间）的线性混合效应模型对∆E*和∆E00 进行统计分析。
在经过 1.5 年的微波消毒模拟后，所有研究的硅橡胶弹性体的∆E和∆E00 均小于视觉可察觉阈值（∆E<1.1 和 E00<0.7），被认为具有临床可接受性（∆E*<3.0 和 E00<2.1）。黄色和蓝色颜料对 MDX4-4210 和 M511 的影响更大，而红色颜料对 MDX4-4210、MDX4-4210/Type A 和 M511 的影响更大（P<.05）。然而，这些值仍低于可察觉阈值（∆E*≤1.0 和 E00<0.6）。
所有 6 种面部硅橡胶弹性体在经过 18 个月的微波消毒后仍保持临床可接受的颜色。
