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.

Methods: The posterior parts of the archwires were sectioned into 20 mm segments (N = 102) and divided among six groups. Four groups were treated with different pH levels and two served as controls. The specimens were immersed in individual test tubes containing 10 ml of artificial saliva adjusted to a pH of 6.75 or 3.5. The tubes were sealed and stored in a 37 °C water bath for 28 days. After 28 days, the specimens were ligated to brackets embedded in an acrylic block and subjected to mechanical stress using an electronic toothbrush for 210 s. The specimens were photographed, and images were measured for coating loss using AutoCAD® software. Surface morphology was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the wettability of 3 different artificial saliva substitutes on heat-polymerized acrylic resin and to compare these properties with natural saliva and distilled water.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 150 heat-polymerized acrylic resin specimens were prepared with 25×15×2 mm dimensions. The specimens were divided into 5 groups (n=30): human saliva, distilled water, Aqwet, Mouth Kote, and Stoppers 4. The advancing and receding contact angle values were measured by using a goniometer, and the contact angle hysteresis and equilibrium angle were calculated. One-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparisons test were performed to determine the difference between contact angle values among the groups (α=.05).