Abstract Objective To evaluate the amount of methyl methacrylate (MMA) released in water from heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture base materials subjected to different cooling procedures. Methodology Disk-shaped specimens (Ø:17 mm, h:2 mm) were fabricated from Paladon 65 (PA), ProBase Hot (PB), Stellon QC-20 (QC) and Vertex Rapid Simplified (VE) denture materials using five different cooling procedures (n=3/procedure): A) Bench-cooling for 10 min and then under running water for 15 min; B) Cooling in water-bath until room temperature; C) Cooling under running water for 15 min; D) Bench-cooling, and E) Bench-cooling for 30 min and under running water for 15 min. A, B, D, E procedures were proposed by the manufacturers, while the C was selected as the fastest one. Control specimens (n=3/material) were fabricated using a long polymerization cycle and bench-cooling. After deflasking, the specimens were ground, polished and stored in individual containers with 10 ml of distilled water for seven days (37oC). The amount of water-eluted MMA was measured per container using isocratic ultra-fast liquid chromatography (UFLC). Data were analyzed using Student’s and Welch’s t-test (α=0.05). Results MMA values below the lower quantification limit (LoQ=5.9 ppm) were registered in B, C, E (PA); E (PB) and B, D, E (QC) procedures, whereas values below the detection limit (LoD=1.96 ppm) were registered in A, D (PA); A, B, C, D (PB); C, D, E (VE) and in all specimens of the control group. A, B (VE) and A, C (QC) procedures yielded values ranging from 6.4 to 13.2 ppm with insignificant differences in material and procedure factors (p>0.05). Conclusions The cooling procedures may affect the monomer elution from denture base materials. The Ε procedure may be considered a universal cooling procedure compared to the ones proposed by the manufacturers, with the lowest residual monomer elution in water.

Abstract Denture adhesives need complete removal due to their frequent replacement. Objective Our study investigates the removal of denture adhesives from denture base materials, using different methods. Methodology PMMA and Polyamide denture base materials were used to fabricate 120 samples (15×15×1.5mm). One side of the samples was left as processed and the other polished with a usual procedure, hydrated for 24 h, dried, and weighted. They received 0.2 g of three adhesive creams on their unpolished surface (Corega, Olivafix, Fittydent), pressed on polysulfide material, stored under 37°C and 95% rel. humidity for 1 h and 60 of them, following their separation from polysulfide base, brushed under running water, whereas the rest inserted in a cleanser bath (Fittydent Super) for 5 min. The samples were dried and inserted in the oven (37°C) for additional 10 min and weighted again. Roughness tests of denture materials and light microscopy of adhesives creams were also used to evaluate the materials. Time lapse images of spayed with water adhesives on PMMA base were also taken to evaluate the volumetric changes of adhesives. Weight data before and after adhesive removal, indicating the amount of remaining adhesive, were statistically analyzed using Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell multiple comparisons tests at α=0.05 level of significance. Results Roughness of Polyamide was higher than PMMA and Fittydent showed greater volumetric changes than the others. Significant differences (p<0.05), were found between PMMA and Polyamide bases, between Olivafix and Fittydent adhesives, and between brushing and cleansing methods but only for PMMA-Olivafix combination. Conclusions Adhesives showed a stronger adherence to PMMA surface, and Fittydent was the most difficult to be removed. Removal methods were not effective for all adhesives or denture base materials. These indicate that removal methods, adhesive type and denture base material are all playing a significant role in the removal of adhesives from denture surfaces.

Abstract Debonding, staining and wear are usually the reasons for denture teeth replacement by new ones from same or different brands. Objective This study investigates the possible differences in color of denture teeth of the same or different brands under different illuminations, since their metameric behavior in color under specific illumination may become unacceptable. Methodology For the purpose of this study, 10 denture teeth (#11), shade A3, of 4 different brands were selected (Creopal/KlemaDental Pro, Executive/DeguDent, Cosmo HXL/DeguDent, Ivostar/Ivoclar-Vivadent). Teeth stabilized in white silicone mold and the CIELAB color coordinates of their labial surface under 3 different illumination lights (D65, F2, A) were recorded, using a portable colorimeter (FRU/WR-18, Wave Inc). ΔE*ab values of all possible pairs of teeth of the same brand (n=45) or pair combinations of different brands (n=100) under each illumination light, in a dry and wet state were calculated. Data were analyzed statistically using 3-way ANOVA, Friedman’s and Wilcoxon’s tests at a significance level of α=0.05. Results The results showed that brand type affected significantly L*, a* and b* coordinates (p<0.0001), illumination a* and b* coordinates (p<0.0001), but none of them was affected by the hydration state of teeth (p>0.05). Intra-brand color differences ranged between 0.21-0.78ΔΕ* units with significant differences among brands (p<0.0001), among illumination lights (p<0.0001) and between hydration states (p=0.0001). Inter-brand differences ranged between 2.29-6.29ΔΕ* units with significant differences among pairs of brands (p<0.0001), illumination lights (p<0.0001) and hydration states (p<0.0001). Conclusions Differences were found between and within brands under D65 illumination which increased under F2 or A illumination affected by brand type and hydration status. Executive was the most stable brand than the others under different illuminations or wet states and for this reason its difference from other brands is the lowest. In clinical practice, there should be no blending of teeth of different brands but if we must, we should select those that are more stable under different illuminations

Abstract While the combined effect of microwave irradiation with cleansing solutions on denture base materials has been investigated, the effects of only using microwave irradiation and, more importantly, in a long-term basis, was not studied yet. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a long-term repeated microwaving on the dimensional, color and translucency stability of acrylic and polyamide denture base materials. Material and Methods Thirty two specimens (32 mm x 10 mm x 2.5 mm) from polyamide (Valplast) and PMMA (Vertex Rapid Simplified) denture base materials were made. Eight specimens from each material were immersed in distilled water (control) and 8 were subjected to microwave exposure at 450 W for 3 minutes for a period simulating 224 days of daily disinfection. Linear dimension, color change (ΔE*) and translucency parameter (TP) were measured at baseline and after certain intervals up to 224 cycles of immersion, using a digital calliper and a portable colorimeter. The results were analysed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA to estimate possible differences among predetermined cycles and material type. Regression analysis was also performed to estimate the trend of changes with time. Statistical evaluations performed at a significance level of 5%. Results Data analysis showed significant changes in length at baseline with an increasing number of cycles (p<0.05) and a significant interaction of cycle-material (p<0.001). The ΔΕ* parameter was significantly higher with a higher number of cycles (p<0.001), but it did not vary between materials (p>0.05). TP decreased similarly in both materials following microwave action but in a significantly higher level for Valplast (p<0.001). Conclusions The results indicated that long-term repeated microwaving affects linear dimensional, color and translucency changes of both materials. Differences between PMMA and polyamide material were noted only in dimension and translucency changes.