Comparative Evaluation of Hardness and Energy Absorption of Some Commercially Available Chairside Silicone-Based Soft Denture Liners and a Heat-Cured Soft Denture Liner

Mahdi Mutahar; Nasser M Al Ahmari; Thrya S Gadah; Mohammed Ali Mohammed Kariri; Hana Y Madkhli; Dawood M Somaili; Yahya M Y Mobarki; Omar Ahmed Darraj; Sultan M Halawi; Mohammed M Al Moaleem

doi:10.2147/CCIDE.S433519

Comparative Evaluation of Hardness and Energy Absorption of Some Commercially Available Chairside Silicone-Based Soft Denture Liners and a Heat-Cured Soft Denture Liner

Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2023 Oct 4:15:205-213. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S433519. eCollection 2023.

Affiliations

¹ Dental Academy, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 2QG, UK.
² Prosthetic Department, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, 62529, Saudi Arabia.
³ Dental Department, Samtah General Hospital, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
⁴ Dental Department, Dayhamah Primary Health Center, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
⁵ Dental Department, Aldureah Primary Health Center, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
⁶ Dental Department, Algahw Primary Health Center, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
⁷ Dental Department, Al Raha Primary Health Center, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
⁸ Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, 45142, Saudi Arabia.

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the hardness and energy absorption of four commercially available chairside types of silicone materials and compare their properties with heat-cured silicone material.

Materials: The chairside materials investigated were GC reline soft, mucopren soft, sofreliner soft and elite soft relining. The heat-cured polymer silicone material was Molloplast B. All soft lining materials were processed according to manufacturers' instructions. Two properties were investigated. Ten specimens for each test were prepared for each soft liner except for the water absorption and solubility test, for which only five specimens were prepared. The specimens of energy absorption (10 × 10 × 3 mm) were tested using a Lloyd instruments testing machine. Hardness specimens (38 × 38 × 3) were tested using a shore A durometer and were divided into two subgroups; dry and wet storage.

Results: The specimens of energy absorption (10 × 10 × 3 mm) were tested using a Lloyd instruments testing machine. Sofreliner soft was significantly softer than Molloplast B. GC reline soft was significantly harder than molloplast B. At high loads, sofreliner soft and elite soft relining was significantly more resilient than molloplast B. Mucopren soft was significantly stiffer than Molloplast B. At low loads, all materials showed similarities in stiffness and resilience; the difference between them was insignificant. After one month of immersion, GC reline and mucopren significantly increased hardness values.

Conclusion: In all conditions and at all four-time points, the hardness values for GC Reline soft were the greatest, and hardness values for Sofreliner Soft were the least. Some chairside soft denture lining materials could have similar significant properties to molloplast-B, such as sofreliner soft and elite.

Keywords: complete dentures; denture liners; energy absorption; hardness; polyvinyl siloxane liner; resilience; soft denture lining materials; stiffness.