[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, August 2, 2019, IP: 157.48.8.

52]

Original Research

Evaluation of tensile bond strength of heat cure and

autopolymerizing silicone-based resilient denture liners
before and after thermocycling

Nishtha Madan, Kusum Datta

Department of Prosthodontics,
Punjab Government Dental
ABSTRACT
College and Hospital, Amritsar,
Punjab, India
Received : 06-03-11
Review completed : 23-06-11
Accepted : 13-10-11
Aim: To assess the effect of simulated mouth conditions reproduced with thermocycling on
the tensile bond strength of two silicone based resilient denture liners with acrylic resin bases.
Materials and Methods: Two silicone-based soft denture liners (Mollosil – Chairside
autopolymerization and Molloplast B – Heat polymerization) were tested. For each liner, 30
specimens with a cross-sectional area of 10 × 10 mm and thickness 3 mm were processed
between two acrylic blocks (Trevalon). Specimens were divided into a control group that was
stored for 24 hours in water at 37°C and a test group that was thermocycled (2500 cycles)
between baths of 5° and 55°C. Tensile bond strength (kg/cm2) was determined in a universal
testing machine using crosshead speed of 5 mm/min.
Statistical Analysis Used: The student t-test was used to determine the significance of the
difference in bond strength between the two liners.
Results: The mean tensile bond strength for control and thermocycled specimens of the two liners
were: Mollosil (6.82 kg/cm2 and 8.41 kg/cm2) and Molloplast-B (16.30 kg/cm2 and 13.67 kg/cm2),
respectively. Comparison of bond strength of control specimens with thermocycled specimens
of the liners indicated a significant difference for both Mollosil (P=0.045) and Molloplast-B
(P=0.027). Comparison between control specimens of both liners and thermocycled specimens
of both liners indicated a highly significant difference (P<0.001).
Conclusions: Heat polymerized resilient denture liner Molloplast-B had higher tensile bond
strength than autopolymerizing liner Mollosil regardless of thermocycling. The bond strength of
Mollosil increased after thermocycling while that of Molloplast-B decreased after thermocycling.
Clinical Implications: Although heat-polymerized denture liners require more processing time
than autopolymerizing liners, but they display much better adhesion properties to denture base
resin and should thus be preferred when soft liner has to be used for a longer duration of time.
Key words: Soft denture liners, tensile bond strength, thermocycling

Resilient lining materials for dentures are products that are
applied to the intaglio surface of dentures for the purpose
of achieving a more equal distribution of the load and a
reduction of local point pressures. Resilient denture liners
were developed to alleviate the discomfort arising from
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Nishtha Madan
E-mail: nishthamadan@gmail.com
transfer of load from the denture base to oral mucosa by
acting as a cushion or a shock absorber between the hard
denture base and the underlying tissues. Soft denture liners
have been found useful for treating patients with ridge
atrophy or resorption, bony undercuts, bruxing tendencies,
congenital or acquired oral defects requiring obturation,
xerostomia, and dentures opposing natural dentition in the
opposing arch.[1]

Access this article online Currently, commonly used soft liners are either plasticized
Quick Response Code: acrylics or silicone elastomers. Both types are available in
Website:
www.ijdr.in autopolymerizing and heat curing forms. Plasticized acrylic
liners which consist of a powder (polymethylmethacrylate
PMID:
*** polymers and co-polymers) and liquid (methacrylate
monomers and plasticizers) tend to become hard and
DOI: lose their resiliency because of gradual leaching out of
10.4103/0970-9290.99041
plasticizers. In silicone elastomers which are basically
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(1), 2012 64
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, August 2, 2019, IP: 157.48.8.52]

Tensile bond strength of silicone soft denture liners Madan and Datta

dimethyl siloxane polymers, no plasticizer is necessary for prepare the specimens, a special flask made of brass with
the softening effect, thus resiliency and cushioning effect three detachable parts was used. A sample mould was cut out
is retained for prolonged periods. in the middle part with a removable 3 mm brass spacer in the
center [Figure 2].
One of the most serious problems associated with silicone
based resilient denture liners is loss of adhesion to the Mollosil specimens: Denture base resin (Trevalon) was mixed
denture base. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture according to manufacturer’s instructions and packed into
base resin and silicone lining material have different the special brass flask with the brass spacer in place. The
molecular structures and cannot be chemically bonded. flask was pressed in a clamp and processing was done in a
The bond is achieved by means of a silicone polymer (such water bath at 74°C for two hours and then increasing the
as methyl siloxane) in a volatile solvent or by the use of temperature of water bath to 100°C and further processing
alkylsilane bonding agents. Adhesion failure between the for one hour. After curing, the flask was bench cooled, the
silicone denture lining materials and the denture base is very blocks were removed from the flask and any excessive flash
common[2-4] and results in a potential surface for bacterial was trimmed off. The surfaces of the acrylic resin blocks to
growth, plaque, and calculus formation at the debonded be bonded to autopolymerizing liner were cleaned with fine
regions and often causes functional failure of the prosthesis. grit sandpaper. Mollosil adhesive No. 03007 was applied on
the dried and degreased surfaces of both blocks and left to
Parameters such as absorption of water and saliva from dry for one minute. The blocks were then placed back in the
the oral cavity may affect the bond between the resilient
lining material and the denture base. Also, cyclic thermal
stresses caused by the intake of hot and cold foods provoke
repetitive shrinkage and expansion causing shear stress at
the bonding interface. This results in a difference of thermal
volumetric change between the denture base and the soft
denture liner. [5,6] Also, diffusion of water into the interface
and contact with adhesive primers causes hydrolytic
degeneration of the bond. McCabe JF et al.[7] reported that
the bond strength of soft denture liners to PMMA denture
base resins is weak, and when separation takes place, the
localized area may become unhygienic and non-functional.

Clinically, the ability of denture lining materials to resist de- Figure 1: Configuration and size of fabricated samples
bonding and internal fracture is necessary in order to avoid
interface failure during the service life of the prosthesis. It
is thus extremely important to evaluate the bond between
silicone based denture soft lining materials and PMMA
denture base resins and study the effect of varying mouth
conditions on this bond strength.

The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the

effect of simulated mouth conditions reproduced with
thermocycling on the tensile bond strength of two silicone-
based resilient denture liners to denture base resin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The materials used in this study are listed in [Table 1].
Thirty specimens of both the liners were prepared with
cross-sectional area of 10 mm × 10 mm and thickness 3 mm Figure 2: Special three part brass flask with removable 3 mm thick
by processing between two PMMA blocks [Figure 1]. To spacer in the middle part

Table 1: Materials used in the study

Material Manufacturer Type Adhesives Polymerization
Mollosil Detax Germany Silicone base Mollosil Adhesive – 03007 Chair autopolymerization
Molloplast-B Detax Germany Heat cure silicone Primo Adhesive – 03004 Heat cure polymerization
Trevalon Dentsply USA Heat cure PMMA _ Heat cure polymerization

65 Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(1), 2012

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, August 2, 2019, IP: 157.48.8.52]

Tensile bond strength of silicone soft denture liners Madan and Datta

flask and the spacer was removed. The base and catalyst pastes [Table 2]. Significance of the statistical differences between
of Mollosil were taken, mixed in the recommended ratio of two means was determined by use of the student-t test.
1:1 and the material packed into the space created by the
removal of the spacer. The flask was closed and bench-pressed RESULTS
for 15 minutes. The sample was removed from the flask and
any excess material was carefully removed with a scalpel. Comparisons of mean tensile strength were made between
Mollosil and Molloplast-B before and after thermocycling.
Molloplast-B specimens: Denture base resin (Trevalon) The difference in mean tensile strengths in respect of the
was mixed according to manufacturer’s instructions and different groups is portrayed in [Figure 4]. The student-t test
packed in the dough stage in the flask with the brass spacer was used to determine whether the difference was
in place. The flask was left at 100 kp for two hours under statistically significant. The computations for the test have
the press. This was done to allow the dough to reach a firm been presented in [Table 3] (comparison of control with
state that would resist distortion when packing the soft thermocycled specimens) and [Table 4] (comparison of
lining material. After two hours, the flask was opened and Mollosil with Molloplast-B specimens).
the spacer removed. Molloplast-B was taken with the help
of a clean spatula and packed into the space created by the Comparison of bond strength of control specimens with
removal of the spacer against the acrylic resin dough. The
flask was then closed and bench-pressed for 15 minutes at Table 2: Basic statistics in respect of tensile strength (kgf/cm2)
100 kp. Polymerization was done by placing the flask in of the study groups
cold water, slowly heating up to 100°C and then keeping it Group Mean S.D. C.V. (%) S.E.m 95% confidence
interval
at 100°C for two hours. The flask was cooled down slowly.
Mollosil (control) 6.82 2.39 35.07 0.62 5.49-8.14
The sample was removed and trimmed off any excess flash. Mollosil 8.41 1.70 20.22 0.44 7.47-9.35
(thermocycled)
Thirty specimens of each liner were prepared. For both the Molloplast-B (control) 16.30 2.53 15.52 0.65 14.90-17.70
liners, 15 control specimens were stored for 24 hours in a Molloplast-B 13.87 3.16 22.79 0.82 12.11-15.61
water bath at 37°C and 15 test specimens were subjected to (thermocycled)
2500 thermal cycles (Thermal Shock Chamber, Standard
Table 3: t-test for comparison of tensile strength of control
Environmental Inc., USA) between water baths of 5°C and
with thermocycled specimens of the liners
55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds in each bath.
Liner Subgroup Mean Std. deviation P value
Mollosil Control 6.816 2.391 0.045*
All the specimens were then deformed at the rate of 5 mm/
Thermocycled 8.407 1.697
minute in a Lloyds Universal Testing Machine linked to Molloplast-B Control 16.303 2.525 0.027*
an IBM compatible computer to determine the maximum Thermocycled 13.865 3.155
tensile load before failure [Figure 3]. *Significant difference

Bond strength was calculated as maximum load before Table 4: t-test for comparison of tensile strength of Mollosil
with Molloplast-B specimens
failure (kgf) divided by the cross-sectional area of the
Liner Subgroup Mean Std. deviation P value
specimen (cm2). Mean, standard deviation (SD) and standard
Mollosil Control 6.816 2.39089 <0.001**
error of mean (SEm) were computed for the four groups Molloplast-B 16.3027 2.52516
Mollosil Thermocycled 8.4067 1.69714 <0.001**
Molloplast-B 13.8647 3.1553
**Highly significant difference

 



7HQVLOHVWUHQJWK
NJFP


 


0ROORVLO 0ROORVLO 0ROORSODVW% 0ROORSODVW%
&RQWURO 7KHUPRF\FOHG &RQWURO 7KHUPRF\FOHG

6RIWOLQHUV

Figure 4: Bar Graph showing difference in mean tensile bond

Figure 3: Sample placed in Lloyd’s Universal Testing Machine for strength between control and thermocycled specimens of Mollosil
checking tensile bond strength and Molloplast-B

Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(1), 2012 66

[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, August 2, 2019, IP: 157.48.8.52]
Tensile bond strength of silicone soft denture liners Madan and Datta
thermocycled specimens of the liners indicated a significant
difference for both Mollosil (P=0.045) and Molloplast-B
(P=0.027).
Comparison of bond strength of control and thermocycled
specimens of Mollosil with control and thermocycled
specimens of Molloplast-B, respectively, indicated a highly
significant difference (P<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Several factors may affect the bond between the resilient
lining materials and the denture base, such as aging in
water, use of adhesive, and the nature of the denture base
material.[8] The effect of water on the adhesive properties of
the resilient lining materials is of utmost importance in final
clinical success. Water absorbed by the material has both
direct and indirect effects on bonding of liners to denture
base resin. Water may percolate directly into the bond
site leading to swelling and consequent increase in stress
at the liner-denture base interface and reduce the bond
strength. In the case of acrylic liners, water may indirectly
decrease the bond strength by causing plasticizers from the
body of the liner to leach out. Diminished plasticizer will
increase the stiffness and reduce the cushioning effect of
the liner material. Ultimately, this reduction in elasticity
will increase the vulnerability of the bond because tensile
forces are transmitted directly to the interface instead of
being absorbed by the liner.
To simulate these natural conditions in the present study, the
specimens were subjected to 2500 thermal cycles. Temperature
variations of 5°C and 55°C were chosen since they are similar
to the temperature of foods ingested and are well tolerated by
the oral mucosa without causing any damage to it.[9]
The bond failure in this study was determined by the tensile
mode of testing. Tensile strength provided information
on the ultimate strength properties in tension. Bates and
Smith[2] and Kawano F[10] considered the tensile test a good
method of investigating the bond strength of resilient lining
materials, because it gives information on the strength of the
bond in comparison to the tensile strength of the material.
It was found that the mean bond strength for the control
group of Mollosil (6.82 kg/cm2) was less than the mean
bond strength for its thermocycled group (8.41 kg/cm2);
whereas the mean bond strength for the control group of
Molloplast-B (16.30 kg/cm2) was more than the mean bond
strength for its thermocycled group (13.87 kg/cm2). Craig
RG[6] reported that the soft denture materials having 10
pounds per inch (4.5 kg/cm2) bond strength were acceptable
for clinical use. Taking this criterion into consideration,
both the materials tested had satisfactory bond strength to
PMMA denture base resin.
67
The bond strength values of the liners obtained after
testing were statistically analyzed using student t-test.
After the analysis it was found that the heat-polymerized
liner Molloplast-B had significantly higher bond strength
than autopolymerizing liner Mollosil, regardless of
thermocycling. These findings were in agreement with the
studies of Adyin AK et al.[8] and Saber-Sheikh K et al. [11]
who confirmed the superiority of the heat-temperature
vulcanized (HTV) over the room-temperature vulcanized
(RTV) soft liners.
There was considerable change in the mean bond
strength values of Mollosil and Molloplast-B liners after
thermocycling. The effect of water on the bond strength
of resilient materials has been evaluated by several
investigators.[2,6,12] Dootz et al.[13] and Hekimoglu and Anil[14]
have also shown that accelerated aging dramatically affects
the physical and mechanical properties of many of the
liners. Excessive water absorption in autopolymerizing
silicone materials compared to heat-polymerizing silicones
has been reported by Saber-Sheikh et al.[11] and Braden M
and Wright PS.[12]
The bond strength of Molloplast-B decreased significantly
after thermocycling which may be attributed to the high
water uptake caused by the filler content. The reduction in
bond strength is the result of swelling and stress buildup at
the bond interface or of the changed viscoelastic properties
of the resilient lining material which renders the material
stiffer and transmits the external loads to the bond site. After
thermocycling, Mollosil showed a significant increase in
bond strength which may indicate that the material became
more brittle and less viscoelastic. The strength of the filler-
polymer bond also influences the tensile properties.
The findings of this study were more or less in line with
the bond strength conclusions of the study drawn by
Kulak-Ozkan Yasemin et al.[15] who found that the bond
strength of Molloplast-B decreased significantly after
thermocycling while that of autopolymerizing liner Mollosil
had a significant increase after thermocyling. Pinto JRR
et al.[16] reported that thermocycling had a deleterious effect
on the bond strength of Molloplast-B liner (13.7 kg/ cm2
for thermocycled group as compared to 15.1 kg/cm2 for
control group) which is again in accordance with this
study (13.87 kg/cm2 for the thermocycled group compared
to 16.30 kg/cm2 for control group). Polyzois GL[13] also
concluded that water storage reduced the bond strength of
resilient liners. However, the results of this study contradict
those of Craig and Gibbons,[6] Dootz et al.[17] and Emmer TJ
et al.[18] who reported that tensile strength of resilient lining
materials of different chemical compositions, whether heat-
cured or autopolymerized, generally increased after storage
in water. These differences may be due to differences in
specimen size, acrylic resin type, processing method, and
the number of thermal cycles.
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(1), 2012
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijdr.in on Friday, August 2, 2019, IP: 157.48.8.52]
Tensile bond strength of silicone soft denture liners Madan and Datta
It is important to assess the physical properties of soft
lining materials in clinical use and the effect of the oral
environment on such properties. Because it is not possible
to completely simulate clinical conditions and reproduce
oral environment in the laboratory, so the final evaluation
should be carried out in a clinical situation.
CONCLUSION
• The bond strength of heat cure soft denture liner
Molloplast-B was greater than the bond strength of
autopolymerizing soft denture liner Mollosil.
• The bond strength of Mollosil, increased after
thermocycling while that of Molloplast-B, decreased
after thermocycling.
• The adequate adhesive value of soft lining material
for clinical usage is considered to be 10 pounds per
inch (4.5 kg/cm2). Since the adhesive bond strength
observed in this study was minimum 6.82 kg/cm2,
both the soft lining materials used are acceptable for
clinical usage.
• Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was
concluded that the heat polymerized resilient denture
liner Molloplast-B had higher tensile bond strength
than autopolymerizing liner Mollosil regardless of
thermocycling.
REFERENCES
1. Winkler S. Essentials of complete denture prosthodontics. In:
Gonzalez JB, editors. The use of resilient liners. 2nd ed. Ishiyaku
EuroAmerica Inc. U.S.A. 2000p. 427-8.
2. Bates JF, Smith DC. Evaluation of indirect resilient liners for denture
laboratory and clinical tests. J Am Dent Assoc 1965;70:344-53.
3. Schmidt WF Jr, Smith DE. A six-year retrospective study of
Molloplast-B lined dentures. Part II: Liner Serviceability. J Prosthet
Dent 1983;50:459-65.
4. Wright PS. The success and failure of denture soft lining materials in
Indian Journal of Dental Research, 23(1), 2012
clinical use. J Dent 1984;12:319-27.
5. Minami H, Suzuki S, Ohashi H, Kurashige H, Tanaka T. Effect of surface
treatment on the bonding of an autopolymerizing soft denture liner
to a denture base resin. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:297-301.
6. Craig RG, Gibbons P. Properties of resilient denture liners. J Am Dent
Assoc 1961;63:382-90.
7. McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Kamohara H. Adhesive bond strength
and compliance for denture soft lining materials. Biomaterials
2002;23:1347-52.
8. Aydin AK, Terzioglu H, Akinay AE, Ulubayram K, Hasirci N. Bond strength
and failure analysis of lining materials to denture resin. Dent Mater
1999;15:211-8.
9. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Euler T, Willershausen B. In vivo validation of the
historical in vitro thermocycling temperature range for dental materials
testing. Clin Oral Investig 2004;8:130-8.
10. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Koran A 3rd, Craig RG. Comparison of bond
strength of six soft denture liners to denture base resins. J Prosthet
Dent 1992;68:368-71.
11. Saber-Sheikh K, Clarke RL, Braden M. Viscoelastic properties of
some soft lining materials II - Aging characteristics. Biomaterials
1999;20:2055-62.
12. Braden M, Wright PS. Water absorption and water solubility of soft
lining materials for acrylic dentures. J Dent Res 1983;62:764-8.
13. Polyzois GL. Adhesion properties of resilient lining materials bonded
to light cured denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:854-8.
14. Hekimoglu C, Anil N. Sorption and solubility of soft denture liners
after accelerated aging. Am J Dent 1999;12:44-6.
15. Kulak-Ozkan Y, Sertgoz A, Gedik H. Effect of thermocycling on tensile
bond strength of 6 silicone based resilient denture liners. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;89:303-10.
16. Pinto JR, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Nobilo MA. Effect of
thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of 4 long term soft
denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:516-21.
17. Dootz ER, Koran A, Craig RG. Physical property comparison of 11 soft
denture lining materials as a function of accelerated aging. J Prosthet
Dent 1993;69:114-9.
18. Emmer TJ Jr, Emmer TJ Sr, Vaidyanathan J, Vaidyanathan TK. Bond
strength of permanent soft denture liners bonded to the denture base.
J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:595-601.
How to cite this article: Madan N, Datta K. Evaluation of tensile bond strength
of heat cure and autopolymerizing silicone-based resilient denture liners before
and after thermocycling. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:64-8.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
68