Adhesive strength of 3 long-term resilient liners to CAD-CAM denture base polymers and heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate with thermocycling

Abstract

Statement of problem: Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technologies have become popular for manufacturing complete dentures. However, the adhesive strength of resilient liners to the polymers used to fabricate CAD-CAM complete dentures is unclear.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the adhesive strength of 3 long-term resilient liners to CAD-CAM denture base polymers and heat-polymerized PMMA with thermocycling.

Material and methods: A total of 90 specimens were fabricated, 30 per group of denture base material (Lucitone 199, Ivo Base CAD, Denture Base LP). For each denture base polymer, 10 specimens were relined with 1 of 3 resilient liners (Permasoft, Mucopren Soft, Molloplast-B). Five specimens of each group were thermocycled, and the other 5 specimens were stored in distilled water. Subsequently, the adhesive strength of the specimens was assessed by tensile testing. The resulting data were analyzed by using a 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α=.05).

Results: After thermocycling, the adhesive strengths of all the resilient liners were found to be statistically different from each other for the same denture base polymer (P≤.012). Mucopren Soft displayed a high mean ±standard deviation adhesive strength to Lucitone 199 (1.78 ±0.32 MPa), followed by Molloplast-B (1.27 ±0.21 MPa) and Permasoft (0.66 ±0.06 MPa). For Ivo Base CAD, Molloplast-B exhibited a high mean ±standard deviation adhesive strength (1.70 ±0.36 MPa), followed by Mucopren Soft (1.11 ±0.16 MPa) and Permasoft (0.53 ±0.04 MPa). Molloplast-B displayed high mean ±standard deviation adhesive strength to Denture Base LP (1.37 ±0.08 MPa), followed by Mucopren Soft (0.68 ±0.20 MPa) and Permasoft (0.32 ±0.04 MPa). The adhesive strength of the majority of resilient liners not exposed to thermocycling was statistically different from each other for the same type of denture base polymer (P<.001). The only exception was the difference between the adhesive strength of Molloplast-B and Mucopren Soft to Lucitone 199 with mean ±standard deviation values of 1.42 ±0.18 and 1.66 ±0.40 MPa, respectively, (P=.067). Without thermocycling, the mean ±standard deviation adhesive strength to Lucitone 199 of Permasoft (0.57 ±0.02 MPa) was statistically different from that of Molloplast-B and Mucopren Soft (P<.001). Molloplast-B displayed a high mean ±standard deviation adhesive strength to Ivo Base CAD (1.83 ±0.25 MPa), followed by Mucopren Soft (1.26 ±0.19 MPa) and Permasoft (0.58 ±0.08 MPa). Molloplast-B displayed a high mean ±standard deviation adhesion to Denture Base LP (1.76 ±0.23 MPa), followed by Mucopren Soft (0.88 ±0.14 MPa) and Permasoft (0.25 ±0.06 MPa). Only Molloplast-B was significantly adversely affected by thermocycling (P=.009).

Conclusions: Molloplast-B displayed high adhesive strength to both CAD-CAM denture base polymers regardless of the storage conditions. Mucopren Soft displayed high adhesion to Lucitone 199. Permasoft presented moderate adhesion to PMMA-based denture bases and low adhesion to DBLP. Combining Permasoft with Denture Base LP should be considered carefully and limited to short-term use. Thermocycling had a detrimental effect on the adhesive strength of Molloplast-B.