Saini Ravinder S, Aswal Gunjan Singh, Vaddamanu Sunil Kumar, Quadri Syed Altafuddin, Mosaddad Seyed Ali, Heboyan Artak
Department of Allied Dental Health Sciences, COAMS, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of West Indies, St Augustine (West Indies), Trinidad and Tobago.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Apr 3. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-04832-w.
Maxillofacial materials have been developed to provide natural and long-lasting prosthetic solutions for patients with facial anomalies caused by trauma, surgery, or congenital diseases. The durability and lifespan of maxillofacial silicone materials are important factors to consider in prosthetic rehabilitation. The tear strength of these materials is a crucial characteristic that directly affects their ability to withstand wear, tear, and deformation over time. Comprehending the comparative examination of tear strength among various maxillofacial silicone materials is crucial to identifying the most appropriate material. This study aimed to compare tear strength among different types of maxillofacial silicone materials.
Pertinent data for the current study were obtained from three databases: Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and PubMed. The study objectives and topics were used to identify pertinent terms, which were then combined using the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND". The search queries generated for each database were utilized to obtain articles from the beginning until December 2024.
Twelve articles were eligible to be included in this study. The described types of maxillofacial silicone materials included VST50F maxillofacial silicone, A-2186 Platinum RTV Silicone Elastomer, and M511 Platinum silicone elastomer. The tear strength proportions of the VST-50 maxillofacial silicone elastomer, A-2186 RTV, and M511 platinum were 0.37, 0.29, and 0.33, respectively. The addition of additive particles to silicone maxillofacial materials significantly improved tear strength (SMD = 4.25, 95% CI: 2.32, 6.18, (p = 0.0001)) compared to the control group.
Based on the present finding, 2186-RTV platinum maxillofacial silicone material exhibits strong tear strength, followed by VST50F maxillofacial silicone as a result of reinforced nano-filler particles (TiO2).
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
颌面材料已被开发出来，为因创伤、手术或先天性疾病导致面部异常的患者提供自然且持久的修复解决方案。颌面硅酮材料的耐久性和使用寿命是修复康复中需要考虑的重要因素。这些材料的撕裂强度是一个关键特性，直接影响其随着时间推移承受磨损、撕裂和变形的能力。了解各种颌面硅酮材料之间撕裂强度的对比研究对于确定最合适的材料至关重要。本研究旨在比较不同类型颌面硅酮材料的撕裂强度。
本研究的相关数据来自三个数据库：科学网、考科蓝图书馆、Scopus、Embase和PubMed。研究目标和主题用于确定相关术语，然后使用布尔运算符“OR”和“AND”进行组合。为每个数据库生成的搜索查询用于获取从开始到2024年12月的文章。
12篇文章符合纳入本研究的条件。所描述的颌面硅酮材料类型包括VST50F颌面硅酮、A - 2186铂室温硫化硅橡胶弹性体和M511铂硅橡胶弹性体。VST - 50颌面硅橡胶弹性体、A - 2186室温硫化硅橡胶和M511铂的撕裂强度比例分别为0.37、0.29和0.33。与对照组相比，向硅酮颌面材料中添加添加剂颗粒显著提高了撕裂强度（标准化均数差 = 4.25，95%可信区间：2.32，6.18，（p = 0.0001））。
基于目前的研究结果，2186 - RTV铂颌面硅酮材料表现出较强的撕裂强度，其次是由于增强纳米填料颗粒（TiO2）的VST50F颌面硅酮。
证据级别III：本期刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者指南www.springer.com/00266 。
