Premium
Porosity and Color of Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer
Author(s) -
Hatamleh Muhanad M.,
Watts David C.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2010.00652.x
Subject(s) - silicone , materials science , mixing (physics) , porosity , silicone elastomers , elastomer , composite material , biomedical engineering , dentistry , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics
Purpose: Prosthesis color production and stability as a result of pore entrapment during mixing has not been investigated for maxillofacial silicone prostheses. The purpose of this study was to investigate pore numbers and percentages of a maxillofacial silicone elastomer mixed by two different techniques, using X‐ray microfocus computerized tomography (Micro‐CT), and to investigate the effect of porosity on color reproducibility and stability after two different aging conditions. Materials and Methods: Sixty‐four disk‐shaped specimens were prepared (8‐mm diameter, 3‐mm thick) by mixing TechSil S25 silicone elastomer (Technovent, Leeds, UK) following two techniques: manual mixing (n = 32) and mechanical mixing under vacuum (n = 32). Half the specimens in each group were intrinsically pigmented, and the other half remained unpigmented. Pore numbers, volumes, and percentages were calculated using the Micro‐CT, and then specimens of each subgroup were stored in simulated sebum for 6 months (n = 8), and exposed to accelerated daylight aging for 360 hours (n = 8). Color change (ΔE) was measured at the start and end of conditioning. Pore numbers and percentages were analyzed using one‐way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett’s‐T3 post‐hoc tests ( p < 0.05). Independent t ‐test was used to detect differences ( p < 0.05) in ΔE between manually and mechanically mixed specimens, in both unpigmented and pigmented states and to detect differences ( p < 0.05) in ΔE before and after conditioning within each mixing method. Results: Mechanical mixing under vacuum reduced the number and percentage of pores in comparison to manual mixing, within pigmented and unpigmented silicone specimens ( p < 0.05). Perceptible ΔE between manual and mechanical mixing techniques were 5.93 and 5.18 for both unpigmented and pigmented specimens, respectively. Under sebum storage, manually mixed unpigmented specimens showed lower ΔE ( p < 0.05) than those that were mechanically mixed; however, pigmented silicone specimens showed the same ΔE ( p > 0.05). After light aging, mixing method had no effect on ΔE of unpigmented specimens ( p > 0.05). Furthermore, mechanically mixed pigmented specimens showed lower ΔE ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: Within silicone elastomers (whether pigmented or unpigmented), mechanical mixing under vacuum reduced pore numbers and percentages in comparison to manual mixing. For selected skin shade, pores affected the resultant color of prosthesis (color reproducibility). Additionally, silicone pores affected silicone color stability upon service. Clinical significance: In fabricating maxillofacial prostheses, mechanically mixing silicone under vacuum produces pore‐free prostheses, tending to enhance their color production and stability.