Analysis of the mechanical properties of bond strength in adhesive systems bonded to HCR silicone facial

Abstract

Objective:

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the maximum displacement resistance of silicone samples adhered to human skin using different adhesives. For this purpose, colorless silicone samples (A-4530-HCRA Silicone Gum HCR) pigmented with Functional Intrinsic II Silicone Coloring System were made and distributed into five groups (1. SA specific adhesive for maxillofacial prostheses: Drying Adhesive; 2. GHPG hair prosthesis glue; 3.GFEG semi-permanent fake eyelash glue; 4. GCLG colorless liquid glue; and 5. GDAT and denture adhesive tape). Four times were used, 30 min (T0), 240 (T1), and 480 min (T2) after the samples were adhered to the volunteer’s forearm.

Results:

The maximum silicone displacement force was greater for the Hair Prosthesis Glue group (GHPG) in the T0 and T2 periods.

Conclusion:

The results show that hair glue (GHPG) would be an alternative option for use in maxillofacial prostheses and denture adhesive tape (GDAT) showed a lack of effective adhesion.

Keywords

Silicones adhesion maxillofacial prosthesis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nóbrega

Neto

CLMM

Dos Santos

, et al Effect of accelerated aging on the sorption and solubility percentages of silicone facial prostheses. Eur J Dent 2022; 1: 223–226.

Haddad

Goiato

Santos

, et al Bond strength between acrylic resin and maxillofacial silicone. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20(6): 649–654.

Andres

Haug

Brown

, et al Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part II: report of survey. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68(3): 519–522.

Bulbulian

AH.

Maxillofacial prosthetics: evolution and practical application inpatient rehabilitation. J Prosthet Dent 1965; 15(3): 554–569.

Hanson

Shipman

Blomfield

, et al Commercial cosmetics and their role in the coloring of facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50(6): 818–820.

Polyzois

GL.

Color stability of facial silicone prosthetic polymers after outdoor weathering. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 82(4): 447–450.

Kiat-Amnuay

Gettleman

Khan

, et al Effect of adhesive retention of maxillofacial prostheses. Part 2: time and reapplication effects. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85(5): 438–441.

Kiat-Amnuay

Lemon

Powers

JM.

Effect of opacifiers on color stability of pigmented maxillofacial silicone A-2186 subjected to artificial aging. J Prosthodont 2002; 11(2): 109–116.

Dahl

Polyzois

GL.

Irritation test of tissue adhesives for facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84(4): 453–457.

10.

Mekayarajjananonth

Huband

Guerra

LR.

Clear acrylic resin device for orientation and placement of a small facial prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83(6): 656–659.

11.

Udagama

Urethane-lined silicone facial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 58(3): 351–354.

12.

Kongkon

Pichayakorn

Sanohkan

Evaluation of in vivo bond strength and skin irritation test for new skin adhesive. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2023; 13(6): 731–738.

13.

Liu

Kuffel

Scott

, et al Silicone-based adhesives for long-term skin application: cleaning protocols and their effect on peel strength. Biomed Phys Eng Exp 2018; 4(1): 1–11.

14.

Polyzois

GL.

Bond strength of double-sided adhesive tapes used for facial prostheses. Special Care in Dentistry 1994; 14(1): 26–29.

15.

Polyzois

Oilo

Dahl

JE.

Tensile bond strength of maxillofacial adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69(4): 374–377.