No abstract

Polymer-gel materials used as short-term denture soft linings are blended with plasticizers to lower the glass transition temperature (Tg). A lower Tg allows for greater polymer chain mobility, thus producing a more flexible material. The present work evaluated the loss of plasticizers due to leaching both in vivo and in vitro. Two commercial denture soft-lining materials (A and B) were tested. These were both poly(ethyl methacrylate) polymers, blended with alcohol and phthalate esters. A clinical study was conducted in which patients wore, sequentially, dentures bearing (on separate occasions) each of the two soft-polymer lining materials. The two materials A and B were randomly assigned for each of ten patients and were worn for 14 and 30 days, respectively. With one exception, patients wore dentures with both lining materials, for a total of 19 clinical evaluations. The plasticizer loss occurring during the clinical trial was determined by GC analysis from the initial and terminal day sampling of plasticizer content of the soft polymer-gel materials. The results of this analysis were compared with results obtained from an in vitro leachability study by use of sink conditions in water at 37 degrees C for the same two commercial soft polymers conducted over the same time periods of 14 and 30 days. The results indicated that a higher loss of plasticizer occurred in vivo, compared with the in vitro tests for 17 of the 19 clinical evaluations. The average plasticizer lost in vivo from material A at 14 days was 122 +/- 58 mg/g, and for material B at 30 days it was 33 +/- 27 mg/g.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

No abstract

Although intra-oral-setting resilient denture liners have been used for 30 years to treat the severely resorbed residual ridges of elderly patients, their clinical physical properties are not well understood. The effect of clinical usage on the compliance (compressibility, flexibility) of two intra-oral-setting resilient denture liners was measured in 10 patients, for up to 30 days. The clinical compliance of Material B (Coe-Comfort) was found to be significantly greater than Material A (Veltec) for up to 14 days. At 24 h both materials had significant compliance reductions from the original 1 h measurement. These compliance reductions continued throughout the testing period. For up to 14 days of clinical usage there were no significant differences between the compliance reductions of the two materials. The study suggests that (i) Material B would provide more effective tissue conditioning of abused residual ridge mucosa than Material A; and (ii) a functional impression made with these materials should be left in the mouth for at least 24 h before the cast is poured.