Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Manipal University College Malaysia, Malaysia
  • 2 Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
  • 3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, A B Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, NITTE (Deemed to be University), Mangaluru, Karnataka, India, Phone: +91 9746344566, e-mail: drmuralips@gmail.com
  • 4 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, PMS College of Dental Science & Research, Trivandrum, Kerala, India
  • 5 Department of Prosthodontics, MES Dental College, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, India
J Contemp Dent Pract, 2023 Nov 01;24(11):891-894.
PMID: 38238278 DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3563

Abstract

AIM: The current study aimed to determine the impact of three different disinfectants on the surface roughness and color stability of heat-cure acrylic denture material.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days.

RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13).

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The maintenance of the prosthesis requires the use of a denture disinfectant; therefore, it is crucial to select one that is effective but would not have a negative impact on the denture base resin's inherent characteristics over time. How to cite this article: Kannaiyan K, Rakshit P, Bhat MPS, et al. Effect of Different Disinfecting Agents on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Heat-cure Acrylic Denture Material: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(11):891-894.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.