Sampath Anche, Velaga Prathista, Devarapalli Samyuktha, Guntupalli Sadvi, Peeta Rahul B, Boyapati Hita
Department of Prosthodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, IND.
Cureus. 2025 Jul 26;17(7):e88801. doi: 10.7759/cureus.88801. eCollection 2025 Jul.
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of three chemical disinfectants, glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine gluconate, on the surface microhardness of acrylic resin denture teeth. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the impact of these disinfectants on microhardness following repeated disinfection cycles.
This in vitro study was conducted at the Department of Prosthodontics, involving 76 acrylic resin denture teeth (Premadent, Premadent Dental Products, Delhi, India) embedded in self-cure acrylic resin (DPI-RR Cold Cure, Dental Products of India, Mumbai, India) using a vinyl polysiloxane putty mold (Elite HD+ Putty, Zhermack SpA, Badia Polesine, Italy). The samples were divided into four groups (n = 19 each): Group 1 (control) was immersed in distilled water (PureFlow Distilled Water, Aquaguard, Mumbai, India); Group 2 was immersed in 2% glutaraldehyde (Cidex, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA); Group 3 was immersed in 1% sodium hypochlorite (Clorox, The Clorox Company, Oakland, CA, USA); and Group 4 was immersed in 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hexidine, ICPA Health Products Ltd., Mumbai, India). Each group underwent three 10-minute disinfection cycles at a seven-day interval and was stored in distilled water between cycles. Surface microhardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester (HMV-2T, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) after the first and third cycles. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's post-hoc test, and paired t-tests (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States).
The control group showed a significant reduction in microhardness from the first cycle to the third cycle (p = 0.00, large effect size). The glutaraldehyde and sodium hypochlorite groups also exhibited significant decreases (p < 0.05, large effect size). No significant changes were observed in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (p = 0.328; d = 0.23). Significant intergroup differences were observed in the first cycle (p = 0.001), but not in the third cycle (p = 0.145), indicating a convergence of effects over time.
Glutaraldehyde and sodium hypochlorite significantly reduced the microhardness of acrylic resin denture teeth, whereas chlorhexidine gluconate had a minimal effect, suggesting its suitability for routine denture disinfection. Careful selection of disinfectants is crucial for maintaining the integrity of denture materials.
本体外研究旨在评估三种化学消毒剂，即戊二醛、次氯酸钠和葡萄糖酸氯己定，对丙烯酸树脂假牙牙齿表面显微硬度的影响。本研究的目的是评估和比较这些消毒剂在重复消毒循环后对显微硬度的影响。
本体外研究在口腔修复科进行，使用乙烯基聚硅氧烷腻子模具（Elite HD+ Putty，Zhermack SpA，意大利巴迪亚波莱西内），将76颗丙烯酸树脂假牙牙齿（Premadent，Premadent牙科产品，印度德里）嵌入自凝丙烯酸树脂（DPI-RR Cold Cure，印度牙科产品公司，孟买）中。样本分为四组（每组n = 19）：第1组（对照组）浸泡在蒸馏水中（PureFlow蒸馏水，Aquaguard，孟买，印度）；第2组浸泡在2%戊二醛中（Cidex，强生公司，美国新泽西州新不伦瑞克）；第3组浸泡在1%次氯酸钠中（高乐氏，高乐氏公司，美国加利福尼亚州奥克兰）；第4组浸泡在2%葡萄糖酸氯己定中（洗必泰，ICPA健康产品有限公司，孟买，印度）。每组每隔七天进行三个10分钟的消毒循环，循环之间保存在蒸馏水中。在第一个和第三个循环后，使用维氏硬度计（HMV-2T，岛津公司，日本京都）测量表面显微硬度。数据使用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey事后检验和配对t检验进行分析（IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows，版本23（2015年发布；IBM公司，美国纽约州阿蒙克））。
对照组从第一个循环到第三个循环显微硬度显著降低（p = 0.00，大效应量）。戊二醛和次氯酸钠组也表现出显著下降（p < 0.05，大效应量）。葡萄糖酸氯己定组未观察到显著变化（p = 0.328；d = 0.23）。在第一个循环中观察到显著的组间差异（p = 0.001），但在第三个循环中未观察到（p = 0.145），表明随着时间推移效果趋同。
戊二醛和次氯酸钠显著降低了丙烯酸树脂假牙牙齿的显微硬度，而葡萄糖酸氯己定的影响最小，表明其适用于常规假牙消毒。谨慎选择消毒剂对于维持假牙材料的完整性至关重要。
