Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Jouf Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Prosthodontic Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia, Phone: +966 597228897, e-mail: dr.mohammed.assayed@gmail.com
J Contemp Dent Pract, 2020 Jun 01;21(6):678-682.
PMID: 33025938

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of hot and dry weather on the hardness and surface roughness of four different maxillofacial silicone elastomeric materials (MFSEM) including two room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) and two high-temperature vulcanized (HTV) materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty test specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions into rectangular test specimens. The hardness and surface roughness were tested, after 6 months of exposure to natural hot and dry weather. The hardness was measured through the International Rubber Hardness Degree (IRHD) scale using an automated hardness tester. The surface roughness was measured using a novel 3D optical noncontact technique using a combination of a light sectioning microscope and a computer vision system. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software SPSS/version 24 was used for analysis and a comparison between two independent variables was done using an independent t test, while more than two variables were analyzed, F test (ANOVA) to be used followed by a post hoc test to determine the level of significance between every two groups.

RESULTS: The hot and dry weather statistically influenced the hardness and surface roughness of MFSEM. Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hardness in test groups while A-2000 showed the hardest material (p < 0.05). A-2000 showed significant changes from rough in case of nonweathered to become smoother in weather followed by A-2186 (p < 0.05). Cosmesil M-511 showed the roughest material.

CONCLUSION: Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hard MFSEM after outdoor weathering while A-2000, the highest and least material showed hardness and surface roughness, respectively.

CLINICAL IMPLICATION: A-2000 had a high IRHD scale hardness. This makes this material more suitable for the replacement of ear and nose defects. Cosmesil M-511 is soft and easily adaptable material that makes the material more appropriate for the replacement of small facial defect with undercut area to be easily inserted and removed. Whilst A-2000 is smoother and finer in test specimens after weathering, Cosmesil M-511 became rougher after weathering.

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