The evaluation of microleakage and bond strength of a silicone-based

resilient liner following denture base surface pretreatment

Duygu Sarac, DDS, PhD,a Y. Sinasi Sarac, DDS, PhD,b Tarik Basoglu, MD,c Oktay Yapici, MD,d
and Emir Yuzbasioglu, DDSe
Faculty of Dentistry and Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey
Statement of problem. The failure of adhesion between a silicone-based resilient liner and a denture base is
a significant clinical problem.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of denture base resin surface pretreatments with
different chemical etchants preceding the silicone-based resilient liner application on microleakage and bond
strength. The initial effects of chemical etchants on the denture base resin in terms of microstructural changes
and flexural strength were also examined.
Material and methods. Forty-two polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture base resin (Meliodent) specimens consisting of 2 plates measuring 30 3 30 3 2 mm were prepared and divided into 7 groups (n=6).
Specimen groups were treated by immersion in acetone for 30 (A30) or 45 (A45) seconds, methyl methacrylate
monomer for 180 (M180) seconds, and methylene chloride for 5 (MC5), 15 (MC15) or 30 (MC30) seconds.
Group C had no surface treatment and served as the control. Subsequently, an adhesive (Mollosil) and a silicone-based resilient denture liner (Mollosil) were applied to the treated surfaces, and all specimens were immersed in the radiotracer solution (thalium-201 chloride) for 24 hours. Tracer activity (x-ray counts), as a
parameter of microleakage, was measured using a gamma camera. For bond-strength measurement, 84 rectangular PMMA specimens (10 3 10 3 40 mm) were surface-smoothed for bonding and treated with the different
chemical etchants using the same previously described group configurations. The adhesive and the siliconebased denture liner were applied to the treated surfaces. Tensile bond-strength (MPa) was measured in a universal testing machine. Flexural strength measurement was performed with 49 PMMA specimens (65 3 10 3
3.3 mm according to ISO standard 1567) in 7 groups (n=7), with 1 flat surface of each treated with 1 of the
chemical etchants preceding adhesive application. The flexural strength (MPa) was measured using a 3-point
bending test in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey
HSD test (a=.05).
Results. Significant differences were found between the groups in terms of microleakage (P,.0001). The lowest microleakage was observed in group M180 (30,000 x-ray counts) and the highest in the control group
(44,000 x-ray counts). The mean bond strength to PMMA resin ranged from 1.44 to 2.22 MPa. All treated
specimens showed significantly higher bond strength than controls (P,.01). The flexural strength values all
significantly differed (P,.05). All experimental specimens that had chemical surface treatments showed
lower flexural strength than controls (P,.05).
Conclusion. Treating the denture base resin surface with chemical etchants increased the bond strength of
silicone-based resilient denture liner to denture base and decreased the microleakage between the 2 materials.
Considering the results of both tests together, the use of methyl methacrylate monomer for 180 seconds was
found to be the most effective chemical treatment. (J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:143-51.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Results from this study showed that treating a denture base acrylic resin surface with chemical
etchants prior to adhesive application reduced the microleakage and increased the bond strength
when using silicone-based resilient liners. However, these chemical treatments decreased the
flexural strength of the acrylic resin when compared to the untreated group.

Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of

Dentistry.
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of
Dentistry.
c
Professor, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine.
d
Assistant Professor, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of
Medicine.
e
Research Assistant, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of
Dentistry.

FEBRUARY 2006

he use of resilient lining materials is helpful in

fabricating removable complete and partial dentures
because of their ability to alleviate inflamed mucosa,1
resulting in a more equal distribution of functional
load on the denture-bearing tissues2 and improving
the intaglio denture surface and retention of the prosthesis.3 Resilient liners can be categorized according to
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 143

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

their chemical structures as plasticized acrylic resins, using either chemical or heat polymerization, vinyl resins,
polyurethane and polyphosphazine rubbers, and silicone rubbers.4 Silicone rubbers are not dependent on
leachable plasticizers and, therefore, retain their elastic
properties for prolonged periods. Silicone rubber materials may be chemically or heat polymerized. Placement
of chemically polymerized resilient liners is relatively
straightforward when compared to heat polymerized
liners.4
There are disadvantages to the use of resilient liners,
including various degrees of softness or poor tear
strength. One problem with silicone-resilient liners is
the failure of adhesion between a resilient liner and a
denture base.2,5,6 Mechanical roughening of denture
base resin by airborne particle abrasion was reported to
have a weakening effect on the bond strength of silicone-based resilient liners.7,8
Bond failure between the liner and denture base also
creates a potential interface for microleakage. Therefore,
effective bonding is important for longevity, and longterm bonding cannot be accomplished without also preventing leakage of fluids between the liner and denture
base.7,9 Many techniques have been used to determine
microleakage between dental materials: use of bacteria,
compressed air, chemical tracers, electrochemical changes,
autoradiographic studies, scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), and die penetration.10 Use of radioisotopes can
provide finer detail in leakage patterns, as well as serve as
a method to quantify and compare leakage values.11
Radionuclide imaging is accepted as a gold standard in
physiologic visualization of the human body and is a
part of routine diagnostic imaging procedures.12
High-performance gamma cameras and positron
emission topography are powerful tools used in nuclear
medicine.13 With the development of various radionuclides, nuclear medicine applications in dental research
have gained popularity. Thallium is a metallic element
of Group IIIA in the periodic table. Thallium-201 chloride is a cyclotron-generated radionuclide. This tracer is
produced by the 203Tl (p,3n) 201Pb 201 / Tl reaction. It decays (physical half life=73 hours) by electron
capture to mercury-201, emitting mercury x-rays of 69
to 83 keV (94.4% abundant; used for imaging) and thallium gamma rays of minimal abundance.13 The hydrated
thallium ion is similar in size and biological behavior to
the hydrated potassium ion and can easily follow water
molecules in any medium.14 One of the advantages of
gamma camera imaging versus autoradiography is the
possibility of digital processing of acquired images
with the possibility of quantification. Thus, tracing thallium-201 ions is feasible with its sufficiently long half
life, and it can also be imaged in high resolution due
to its low energy level.15 The possibility of reliable imaging and counting thallium-201 ion quantity in a bonding zone provides investigators an opportunity to
144

SARAC ET AL

measure, directly, the amount of microleakage, since

in the case of an absolute absence of thallium-201
ions, there should also be no radiotracer activity detectable in the measured area.
Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture base
resin and silicone-based lining materials have different
molecular structures and cannot be chemically bonded.
Bonding between the denture base resin and siliconebased lining material relies completely on an interfacial
adhesive. A solvent that dissolves the PMMA surface,
such as acrylic resin monomer, is most commonly used
for this purpose.4 Sarac et al15 used airborne-particle
abrasion (APA) and methyl methacrylate (MMA) wetting as a denture base resin pretreatment to examine
the effect on microleakage between a silicone-based
resilient liner and denture base resin by means of the
radioactive tracer, thallium-201. The authors reported
that the swelling of the outer denture base by MMA wetting and the penetration of the adhesive more effectively
reduced the leakage of fluids within this interface compared to APA alone.15
Leles et al16 stated that the adhesion between hard
chairside reline materials and denture base resins could
be increased by using different surface treatments of
the base resin. Wetting the acrylic resin surface with
chemical substances, such as MMA monomer or other
organic solvents, increases the bond strength between
these materials.17-20 It has also been shown that the
use of a bonding agent increases the adhesive bond
strength of either resilient or hard relining materials to
denture base resins.7,18,21,22
Besides increasing the bond strength of resilient or
hard relining materials to PMMA, chemical etchants
such as MMA,19 acetone,23,24 or methylene chloride25,26 are used to increase the bond strength of repair
material to PMMA. The aim of using these chemical
etchants in the previously mentioned investigations
was to dissolve the surface structure of PMMA. However, there was no consideration in these previous studies concerning the most effective application time of
these chemical etchants. Vallittu et al19 stated that wetting the PMMA surface with MMA dissolves the surface
structure of PMMA, and a duration of 180 seconds of
MMA wetting created a smoother surface topography
under SEM compared with shorter durations of wetting.
The denture base acrylic resin surfaces treated with
these etchants were examined using SEM, and it was
found that etched surfaces were smoother than untreated surfaces.19,23 However, materials used in conjunction with resilient liners, such as adhesives and
monomers, may cause partial dissolution of the accompanying denture base material. The resultant decrease
in base strength may cause problems associated with
denture base flexure during clinical service.4
This study had 2 objectives. First, the effects of
denture base resin surface pretreatments with different
VOLUME 95 NUMBER 2

SARAC ET AL

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Fig. 1. Side and frontal view of microleakage specimen.

Table I. Materials used in this study
Material

Heat-polymerized acrylic resin

Silicone-based resilient liner
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methyl methacrylate

Product

Batch No.

Manufacturer

Meliodent
Mollosil

Meliodent

01266
040902
K26610813-924
K23408449-644
012101

Heraeus Kulzer, Ltd, Newbury, UK

DETAX GmbH & Co, KG, Ettlingen, Germany
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
Merck KGaA
Heraeus Kulzer, Ltd

chemical etchants preceding placement of a siliconebased resilient liner application on microleakage and
bond strength was evaluated. Secondly, the initial effects
of chemical etchants on a denture base resin in terms
of microstructural changes and flexural strength was
examined. The research hypothesis was that the duration
of application or the type of chemical etchants would
have different effects on the bond strength of the silicone-based resilient liner to denture base resin and on
the amount of microleakage between the 2 materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The materials used in this study are listed in Table I.
For the microleakage test, 42 identical denture base test
specimens measuring 30 3 30 3 2 mm were prepared
conventionally by compression packing the resin into
molds and heat processing in a water bath at 74C
under compression for a period of 8 hours. An additional 42 specimens were similarly fabricated, but the
second group had a 10 3 10 3 2-mm square stopper
located centrally to create a 2-mm-thick layer of resilient
lining material between the plates (Fig. 1). A single
specimen unit consisted of a set of these 2 square plates.
For preparing standard specimens, the 2 plates, with and
without a stopper, were first fabricated in brass. These
brass plates were invested in silicone rubber (Zetaplus;
Zhermack Spa, Badia Polesine, Italy), and the obtained
mold was used for the preparation of wax plates, which
were used for the production of the denture base specimens. The processed denture base specimens were
stored in distilled water for 24 hours prior to the surface
FEBRUARY 2006

Table II. Surface pretreatments and groups

Group

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

Surface pretreatment

C
A30
A45
M 180
MC5
MC15
MC30

Untreated (control)
30-s acetone
45-s acetone
180-s methyl methacrylate
5-s methylene chloride
15-s methylene chloride
30-s methylene chloride

pretreatment. They were then divided into 7 groups;

each had 6 square plates with a stopper and 6 plates
without a stopper. The inner surface of both plates was
treated with one of the surface pretreatments described
in Table II.
Specimens in Group C had no surface treatment and
served as the control. All specimens were treated by
immersion of the plate inner surfaces into different
chemical etchants. The duration of the immersion in acetone was 30 or 45 seconds for group A30 and group
A45, respectively.23,24 Specimens from group MC5,
group MC15, and group MC30 were immersed in
methylene chloride for 5, 15, or 30 seconds, respectively.25,26 For Group M, the duration of immersion
into MMA was 180 seconds.19 All specimens were left
to dry for 2 minutes after pretreatment. Subsequently,
the adhesive of the silicone resilient liner (Mollosil;
DETAX GmbH & Co KG) was applied to the treated
surfaces of the plates with a brush and allowed to
dry for 1 minute. Following adhesive application, a
chemically polymerized silicone-based resilient denture
145

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

SARAC ET AL

Fig. 2. Testing apparatus for (A) tensile bond strength test and (B) flexural strength test.

liner (Mollosil; DETAX) was prepared by mixing equal

lengths of base and catalyst for 30 seconds, and applied
between the inner surfaces of all specimen units with
a plastic spatula. The lining material was allowed to
polymerize under a 2.5-kg static load for 10 minutes,
and excess lining material was removed carefully
from the outer surface of the specimen units with a
scalpel.
Six additional size-matched PMMA blocks (30 3
30 3 6 mm) were prepared with the same methods as
previously described to allow calculation of the adherent surface radioactivity (counts) for the outer surface
of the denture base (outer surface contamination;
OSC). The 42 microleakage specimen units and the 6
PMMA blocks were trimmed of flash and then thermal
cycled (Nova; Nova Co, Konya, Turkey) for 500 cycles
between 5C and 55C with a dwell time of 30 seconds
before storage in the radiotracer solution (thallium-201
chloride; MDS Nordion, Fleurus, Belgium).
One hundred forty-eight MBq of the radiotracer solution was diluted in 1000 mL of tap water, yielding a
tracer concentration of 0.148 MBq/mL. All specimens
were immersed in the radiotracer solution for 24 hours.
Then, to minimize the radiotracer adhesion to the outer
surface of the specimen units and the PMMA blocks,
they were carefully washed in a detergent (Cif Lux;
Unilever, Elida, Kocaeli, Turkey) solution for 1 minute,
rinsed with distilled water, and allowed to air dry. After
drying, specimens were placed directly on the plasticcovered detector of a circular-headed gamma camera
(LEHR; Siemens, Chicago, Ill). Using a low-energy,
high-resolution collimator (LEHR; Siemens), the 72keV mercury x-ray energy of thallium-201 chloride
was determined over 20 minutes using a 512 3 512
static image matrix. After image storage of the total
counts (x-ray counts, representing thallium-201 chloride concentration) of each specimen unit, the outer surface of each solid acrylic resin block was counted digitally
with the gamma camera software in a similar fashion.
146

Background correction was performed for each specimen unit. To accomplish this, the mean OSC value of
the 6 size-matched PMMA blocks was accepted as a normal contamination value and was subtracted from the
total count value of each microleakage specimen unit to
detect radiation attributable only to microleakage. The
amount of OSC-subtracted total specimen counts was
assumed to be directly proportional to the quantity of
the inward diffusing tracer. OSC-subtracted counts
were used in the statistical analysis of the groups and
were compared with each other using 1-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (SPSS 12.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago,
Ill) and Tukey HSD tests (a=.05).
Eighty-four rectangular PMMA blocks with a 10 3
10-mm2 cross-sectional area and 40-mm length were
prepared for tensile bond strength test. For the preparation of the PMMA blocks, 2 brass dies with 10 3 10mm2 cross-sectional area and 40-mm length were
used. These dies were invested in silicone rubber
(Zetaplus; Zhermack Spa). The obtained mold was
used for the preparation of the wax blocks, which were
used for the production of the PMMA blocks. Acrylic
resins were processed in a water bath 75C for 9 hours.
After polymerization, PMMA blocks were ground with
320-grit silicone carbide paper (Carbimet; Buehler,
Lake Bluff, Ill) to remove surface irregularities and
excess material. Two PMMA blocks with a 3-mm-thick
brass spacer between them were invested in a denture
flask (Atlas flask; Handler Mfg, Westfield, NJ) using
silicone rubber (Zetaplus; Zhermack Spa) to allow for
easy removal of the specimens from the flask. The
PMMA blocks were then removed from the flask, and
the surfaces to be bonded were smoothed and pretreated with different chemical treatments as described
in the microleakage test. The adhesive (Mollosil-specific; DETAX) was applied to the treated surfaces with
a brush and left to dry for 1 minute. Next, the PMMA
blocks were placed back into the molds, and the silicone-based resilient liner was then packed into the space
VOLUME 95 NUMBER 2

SARAC ET AL

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table III. Mean values and SDs of microleakage (x-ray counts)

Mean
SD
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

C
A30
A45
M180
MC5
MC15
MC30

A30

A45

M180

MC5

MC15

MC30

44,000
5,000

32,000
3,000
X

43,000
7,000

30,000
6,000
X

42,000
5,000

33,000
6,000
X

39,000
7,000

X
X

X
X

X represents significant difference (P,.05) to corresponding mean values.

Table IV. Results of 1-way ANOVA for microleakage test

Between groups
Within groups
Total

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

Sig.

1234492735
1138056501
2372549236

6
35
41

205748789
32515900

6.328

.0001

made by the brass spacer. After 10 minutes, the

specimens were removed from the flask and the excess
material was removed carefully with a scalpel. All specimens were thermal cycled (Nova; Nova Co) as previously described. Tensile bond strength testing was
performed on each specimen until failure. A universal
testing machine (Lloyd LRX; Lloyd Instruments,
Fareham Hants, UK) at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/
min (Fig. 2 A) was used for this test. The maximum tensile load before failure was recorded for each specimen.
Tensile bond strength was calculated as the load at failure divided by the cross-sectional area of the specimen.
After examination by means of a stereomicroscope
(Stemi 2000-C; Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) using 310
magnification, the failure was recorded as either cohesive, adhesive, or mixed. Adhesive failure refers to total
separation at the interface between the resilient liner
and acrylic resin, cohesive failure refers to tear within
the resilient liner, and mixed failure refers to both.
Data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA (SPSS 12.0;
SPSS Inc), and mean values were compared using the
Tukey HSD test (a=.05).
Forty-nine flexural test specimens were prepared to
the dimensions of 65 3 10 3 3.3 mm, according to
ISO standard 1567 by packing and processing the
denture base resin according to manufacturers instructions.27 The specimens were then ground with 320-grit
silicone carbide paper (Carbimet; Buehler) to remove
surface irregularities and excess material. Specimens
were stored in water at 37C for 24 hours before surface
pretreatment and testing. The specimens were then
cleaned ultrasonically with distilled water and dried
with a blast of air. The specimens were divided into 7
groups, and the surface treatments were applied as
FEBRUARY 2006

previously described in the microleakage test. All specimens were allowed to air dry for 2 minutes after pretreatment, and the adhesive was applied to the treated
surfaces of the plates with a brush and dried for 1 minute.
The flexural strength of the specimens was measured using a 3-point bending test in a universal testing machine
(Lloyd LRX; Lloyd Instruments) with a 1000-N load
cell and a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min (Fig. 2 B).
The flexural strength of each specimen unit was determined using the formula:
S

3WL
2bd2

where W is the flexural load, L is the distance between

supports (50.0 mm), b is the specimen width, and d
is the specimen thickness.10 Flexural strength (MPa)
values were calculated and compared with each other using 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD tests (a=.05).
To evaluate the effect of the chemical treatments on
the surface of each denture base material, seven 30 3
30 3 2-mm specimens were prepared, and the surfaces
were ground with 600-grit silicone carbide paper
(Carbimet; Buehler). These surfaces were treated with
the same experimental protocol described previously.
All specimens were gold sputtered with a sputter coater
(S150B; Edwards, Crawley, England) and examined by
means of a field emission SEM (JSM-6335F; JEOL Ltd,
Tokyo, Japan) at 15.0 or 20.0 kV. The SEM photomicrographs were developed with 32000 magnification
for visual inspection.

RESULTS
The mean amount of radiotracer adhesion to the
outer surface of the PMMA blocks used to determine
the OSC value was 7400 6 100 x-ray counts. The
mean microleakage values of the groups from which
the OSC value was subtracted are given in Table III.
The 1-way ANOVA (Table IV) indicated significant differences between the groups (P,.001). The lowest microleakage occurred for the group M180 specimens
(30,000 x-ray counts) and the highest, for the control
147

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

SARAC ET AL

Table V. Mean values and SDs of tensile bond strength (MPa)

Group

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

Mean

C
A 30
A 45
M 180
MC 5
MC 15
MC 30

1.44
2.10
1.57
2.22
1.59
2.05
1.74

SD

0.07
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.45
0.06
0.06

b
a
a
b

Same lower case letter indicates mean values of groups were not statistically
different (P..05).

Table VII. Failure types

Type of failure
Group

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

C
A30
A45
M180
MC5
MC15
MC30

Adhesive

Cohesive

Mixed

2
4
3
2
3
5
5

group (44,000 x-ray counts). However, there were

no significant differences between the control group
and group A45, group MC5, or group MC30. No significant differences were found between group M180
and groups A30, MC15, and MC30. Significant differences were not observed for the different durations
of methylene chloride application, although there was
a significant difference between acetone application
for 30 and 45 seconds (P,.05).
The mean values and SDs of tensile bond strength of
specimens are shown in Table V. The 1-way ANOVA
results shown in Table VI indicate that significant differences were found between the surface treatments
for tensile bond properties (P,.001). The mean bond
strength to PMMA resin ranged from 1.44 to 2.22
MPa. All treated groups showed significantly higher
bond strength than the control group (P,.01). The
lowest bond strength was obtained for the control
group (1.44 MPa), and the highest was obtained for
group M180 (2.22 MPa). There was no significant difference between group A45 and group MC5 or between
group A30 and group MC15.
The mode of failure results are shown in Table VII.
Different failure types were observed among the
groups. The control group showed primarily adhesive
failure, whereas group A45 and group MC5 demonstrated both adhesive and mixed failures. Most of the
failures in groups MC15 and MC30 were mixed failures. Group M180 demonstrated primarily cohesive
failures.
148

Table VI. Results of 1-way ANOVA for tensile bond strength

test

Between groups
Within groups
Total

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

Sig.

3.336
.095
3.431

6
35
41

.556
.003

205

.001

Table VIII. Mean values and SDs of flexural strength (MPa)

Group

Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group

Mean

C
A 30
A 45
M 180
MC 5
MC 15
MC 30

75.7
71.5
65.0
70.6
73.1
72.5
68.5

SD

0.9
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.7

a,b
a
b
b

Same lower case letter indicates mean values of groups were not statistically
different (P..05).

Table IX. Results of 1-way ANOVA for flexural strength

Between groups
Within groups
Total

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

Sig.

501
40
541

6
42
48

83
.96

87

.001

The mean values and SDs for flexural strength testing

of the groups are listed in Table VIII, and the results of
1-way ANOVA are given in Table IX. The flexural
strength values differed significantly (P,.05). All experimental groups that had chemical surface treatments
showed lower flexural strength than the control. All experimental groups were significantly different from the
control (P,.05). No significant differences were found
between group A30 and M180 or between groups
M180, MC5, and MC15. The highest flexural strength
was obtained with the control group (75.7 MPa), and
the lowest was obtained with group A45 (65.0 MPa).
The SEM investigation of control specimens revealed
surfaces with scratches, valleys, and depressions (Fig. 3
A). Regarding the test specimens, the 30-second acetone application produced a slightly smoother surface
than the 45-second application, which created deeper
valleys compared to 30-second application (Fig. 3 B
and C). The surface treated with methylene chloride
for 5 seconds produced a smooth surface, whereas the
15-second application produced numerous elliptically
shaped and shallow appearing areas on a relatively
smooth background (Fig. 3 E and F). Application of
methylene chloride for 30 seconds created a smooth surface with small, deep round-shaped areas (Fig. 3 G). The
surface treatment with monomer created a smoother
VOLUME 95 NUMBER 2

SARAC ET AL

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Fig. 3. SEM micrographs of acrylic denture base resin surfaces after treatment. A, Untreated (control). B, Treated with acetone for
30 seconds. C, Treated with acetone for 45 seconds. D, Treated with MMA for 180 seconds. E, Treated with methylene chloride
for 5 seconds. F, Treated with methylene chloride for 15 seconds. G, Treated with methylene chloride for 30 seconds. Original
magnification 32000; bar, 10 mm.

surface texture than the control specimen, but with

some superficial concave surface irregularities (Fig. 3 D).

DISCUSSION
The results of this study support the hypothesis that
the duration of the application or the type of chemical etchants would have different effects on the bond
strength of the silicone-based resilient liner to denture
base resin and on the amount of microleakage between
the 2 materials. The control groups for the microleakage
and tensile strength tests showed significantly higher
microleakage and lower bond strength values than the
experimental groups (P,.001).
Several factors may affect the bond between the resilient lining materials and the denture bases, such as aging
in water, use of adhesive, and the nature of the denture
base material.2 When the resilient lining material absorbs water, stress occurs between the bonding surfaces
and the viscoelastic properties of the resilient liners
change.21 The material becomes brittle and transfers
the external loads to the bond area.2 To simulate these
natural conditions in the present study, the specimens
of the microleakage and tensile bond strength test
were thermal cycled.
Bonding between the denture base resin and siliconebased lining material relies completely on the adhesive, a
solvent that dissolves the denture base resin surface,
such as acrylic resin monomer.4 The results of the present study showed that the application of different
chemical etchants increased the bond strength of silicone-based resilient denture lining material to denture
base resin, compared to the control group. Among the
experimental groups, the highest bond strength was
FEBRUARY 2006

obtained with the MMA treatment for 180 seconds

(2.22 MPa), and all groups showed 1.44 MPa or higher
bond strength values at failure. It has been reported that
a 4.5 kg/cm2 (0.44 MPa) bond strength was acceptable
for the clinical use of resilient denture lining materials.7
In the present study, the measured bond strength of
the resilient denture liner, in descending order according to the type of chemical etchant and duration of
application, was as follows: MMA for 180 seconds, acetone for 30 seconds, methylene chloride for 15 seconds,
methylene chloride for 30 seconds, methylene chloride
for 5 seconds, and acetone application for 45 seconds.
Leles et al16 used different chemical surface treatments
to increase the bond strength between a hard chairside
reline resin and a denture base material. The authors
stated that wetting the denture base surface with
MMA for 180 seconds provided higher mean bond
strength values compared to specimens having no surface treatment, or specimens receiving treatments with
either chloroform wetting for 5 seconds or acetone
wetting for 5 seconds.16
When the failure types were investigated, it was observed that the groups showed both adhesive and mixed
failures. This may indicate that the bond strengths
among the liner molecules as well as between the liner
and resin are nearly the same. Treatment with MMA
for 180 seconds showed primarily cohesive failure,
which implies that the bond strength between the resilient denture lining material and denture base was greater
than the molecular bond of the liner material.
The treatment that demonstrates the lowest microleakage might result in slower debonding of the resilient
liner to the denture base, thus providing a longer clinical
life for the prosthesis. In this study, all chemical
149

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

treatments reduced the microleakage between the denture base resin and silicone-based denture lining material compared to untreated control specimens. The
swelling of the outer denture base by chemical etchants
and the penetration of the adhesive that resulted in a reduction of the leakage of fluids within this interface was
shown to be an effective procedure compared to the untreated specimens. Sarac et al15 used APA and MMA as a
denture base surface treatment and reported that wetting the denture base surface with MMA and a subsequent reduction of fluid leakage within the interface
was more effective than either an airborne-particleabraded surface or the use of only an adhesive application. Using MMA and adhesive together may effectively
increase the dissolution of the denture base resin surface
prior to resilient liner application.15 This study showed
that the lowest microleakage value was also obtained
with the 180 second MMA treatment (30,000 x-ray
counts).
The chemical etchants make the denture base resin
surfaces porous by dissolving the latter and create a
type of mechanical interlocking structure between the
2 materials.16,19 The type of chemical etchants and the
duration of application are important parameters for
a more effective bond between the 2 materials.
Methylene chloride application for 15 seconds was a
nearly equally effective chemical etchant, increasing
the bond strength and reducing the microleakage in
an almost comparable fashion to that of the 180-second
MMA treatment.
The comparison of the bond strength values obtained
by 3 different methylene chloride application times has
shown that the 15-second application significantly increased the bond strength compared to the 5- and 30second applications. However, no significant difference
between the microleakage results of the 3 groups was
observed. This can be explained, in part, with SEM
photomicrographs. A 15-second methylene chloride
application created the most suitable surface structure
smoother than the 30-second application and more
irregular than the 5-second application.
Resilient liners exert significant influence on the associated denture bases. As the thickness of a resilient liner
is increased, the thickness of the accompanying denture
base must be decreased, which results in decreased denture base strength.4 Furthermore, materials used in conjunction with resilient liners, such as adhesives and
monomers, may cause partial dissolution of the accompanying denture base. The resultant decrease in base
strength may cause fracture during clinical service. In
the present study, flexural strength testing was used to
investigate the effect of chemical surface treatments on
the strength of the denture base. The outcome demonstrated that chemical treatments significantly decreased
the strength of the denture base, compared to the control. The highest flexural strength was obtained with the
150

SARAC ET AL

control group (75.73 MPa) and the lowest strength was

obtained with Group A45 (65.04 MPa). Rached et al24
compared the flexural strength of intact and repaired
acrylic resins and reported that the flexural strengths
ranged from 63.5 to 80.6 MPa and that these values
were within the limits of the ISO/FDIS 1567.27 Also,
although the chemical surface treatments in the present
study resulted in a measurable decrease in the flexural
strength of the acrylic resin, the strength levels of all
test specimens remained in the same limits as reported
by Rached et al.24
The results of the present study showed that the use
of chemical etchants improve the efficiency of bonding
between a silicone-based resilient lining material and
denture base resin. A notable limitation of this study
was the use of only 1 type of silicone-based resilient
lining material in the tests. Different results might be
obtained with different resilient lining material. Thus,
further investigations are necessary to evaluate the effects of the denture base surface pretreatments on the
microleakage and bond strength of different siliconebased resilient lining materials.

CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Treating a denture base resin surface with chemical
etchants significantly increased the bond strength of
a silicone-based resilient denture liner to a denture
base (P,.001) and decreased the microleakage between
the 2 materials (P,.0001). Considering the results of
both tests together, the use of methyl methacrylate for
180 seconds was found to be the most effective chemical
treatment overall (P,.001).
2. The results for methylene chloride and acetone application were also found to be similar to methyl methacrylate (P..05). The 15- and 30-second applications,
respectively, were the most effective.
3. All chemical treatments performed in this study
significantly decreased the flexural strength of acrylic
resin compared to the untreated group (P,.001).
REFERENCES
1. Nikawa H, Iwanaga H, Hamada T, Yuhta S. Effects of denture cleansers on
direct soft denture lining materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:657-62.
2. Aydn AK, Terzioglu H, Aknay AE, Ulubayram K, Hasrc N. Bond
strength and failure analysis of lining materials to denture resin. Dent
Mater 1999;15:211-8.
3. Garcia RM, Leon BT, Oliveira VB, Del Bel Cury AA. Effect of a denture
cleanser on weight, surface roughness, and tensile bond strength of two
resilient denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:489-94.
4. Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW, editors. Phillips science of dental materials.
11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2003. p. 751-3.
5. Sertgoz A, Kulak Y, Gedik H, Taskonak B. The effect of thermocycling on
peel strength of six soft lining materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:583-7.
6. Kulak-Ozkan Y, Sertgoz A, Gedik H. Effect of thermocycling on tensile
bond strength of six silicone-based, resilient liners. J Prosthet Dent
2003;89:303-10.

VOLUME 95 NUMBER 2

SARAC ET AL

7. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A 3rd, Craig RG. Comparison of bond

strength of six soft denture liners to denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent
1992;68:368-71.
8. Amin WM, Fletcher AM, Ritchie GM. The nature of the interface between
polymethyl methacrylate denture base materials and soft lining materials.
J Dent 1981;9:336-46.
9. Anl N, Hekimoglu C, Buyukbasx N, Ercan MT. Microleakage study of
various soft denture liners by autoradiography: effect of accelerated aging.
J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:394-9.
10. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent 1992;20:3-10.
11. Going RE. Cavity liners and dentin treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;69:
416-22.
12. Ell PJ, Gambhir SS, editors. Nuclear medicine in clinical diagnosis and
treatment. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2004. p. 13.
13. Sandler MP, editor. Diagnostic nuclear medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003. p. 15-9.
14. Henkin RE, Boles MA, Dillehay GL, Halama JR, Karesh SM, Wagner RH,
et al. Nuclear medicine. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996. p. 366.
15. Sarac YS, Basoglu T, Ceylan GK, Sarac D, Yapc O. Effect of denture base
surface pretreatment on microleakage of a silicone-based resilient liner.
J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:283-7.
16. Leles CR, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC. Bonding
strength between a hard chairside reline resin and a denture base material
as influenced by surface treatment. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1153-7.
17. Shen C, Colaizzi FA, Birns B. Strength of denture repairs as influenced by
surface treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:844-8.
18. Curtis DA, Eggleston TL, Marshall SJ, Watanabe LG. Shera bond strength
of visible-light-cured resin relative to heat-cured resin. Dent Mater 1989;
5:314-8.
19. Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Wetting the repair surface with
methyl methacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heatpolymerized resin. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:639-43.
20. Arima T, Nikawa H, Hamada T, Harsini A. Composition and effect of denture base resin surface primers for reline acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent
1996;75:457-62.
21. Polyzois GL. Adhesion properties of resilient lining materials bonded to
light-cured denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:854-8.

FEBRUARY 2006

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

22. Arena CA, Evans DB, Hilton TJ. A comparison of bond strengths among
chairside hard reline materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:126-31.
23. Rached RN, Del-Bel Cury AA. Heat-cured acrylic resin repaired with
microwave-cured one: bond strength and surface texture. J Oral Rehabil
2001;28:370-5.
24. Rached RN, Powers JM. Del Bel Cury AA. Repair strength of autopolymerizing, microwave, and conventional heat-polymerized acrylic resins.
J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:79-82.
25. Nagai E, Otani K, Satoh Y, Suzuki S. Repair of denture base resin using
woven metal and glass fiber: effect of methylene chloride pretreatment.
J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:496-500.
26. Minami H, Suzuki S, Minesaki Y, Kurashige H, Tanaka T. In vitro evaluation of the influence of repairing condition of denture base resin on the
bonding of autopolymerizing resins. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:164-70.
27. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 1567: 1999. Dentistrydenture base polymers. Available at: http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/
prods-services/ISOstore/store.html. Last accessed November 7, 2005.
Reprint requests to:
DR DUYGU SARAC
ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITESI
DIS HEKIMLIGI FAKULTESI
PROTETIK DIS TEDAVISI A.D.
55139 KURUPELIT
SAMSUN
TURKEY
FAX: 190 362 457 60 32
E-MAIL: dsarac@omu.edu.tr
0022-3913/$32.00
Copyright 2006 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.11.012

151