METHODS: The governing equations of fluid flow have been transformed in the form of ordinary differential equations. These equations have been solved by two methods namely, shooting method and three-stage Lobatto IIIa formula.
RESULTS: The effects of different parameters on temperature, velocity, concentration profiles, skin friction coefficient, Sherwood number, and reduced Nusselt number were obtained and presented graphically. It was noticed that four solutions existed at definite ranges of the parameters for high suction over both surfaces for the first time. The results of the stability analysis revealed that only the first solution is more stable and possess physical reliability compared to the remaining solutions.
CONCLUSION: The graphs also indicated that the fluid velocity decreases as the thermophoresis parameter increases but the opposite behavior observed for both temperature and concentration profiles in the first solution. Furthermore, it was detected that the concentration profile declined at the higher values of the Brownian motion parameter.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A gypsum mold was coated with clear acrylic spray. The coated mold was then used to produce modified silicone experimental specimens (n = 35). The surface roughness of the modified silicone elastomers was compared with that of the control specimens, which were prepared by conventional flasking methods (n = 35). An atomic force microscope (AFM) was used for surface roughness measurement of silicone elastomer (unmodified and modified), and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the topographic conditions of coated and noncoated gypsum and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) groups. After the gypsum molds were characterized, the fabricated silicone elastomers molded on noncoated and coated gypsum materials were evaluated further. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis of gypsum materials (noncoated and coated) and silicone elastomer specimens (unmodified and modified) was performed to evaluate the elemental changes after coating was conducted. Independent t test was used to analyze the differences in the surface roughness of unmodified and modified silicone at a significance level of p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Roughness was significantly reduced in the silicone elastomers processed against coated gypsum materials (p < 0.001). The AFM and SEM analysis results showed evident differences in surface smoothness. EDX data further revealed the presence of the desired chemical components on the surface layer of unmodified and modified silicone elastomers.
CONCLUSIONS: Silicone elastomers with lower surface roughness of maxillofacial prostheses can be obtained simply by coating a gypsum mold.