A Prospective Study on the Clinical Performance of Polysiloxane Soft Liners: One-year Results

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of four denture soft liners up to 12 months. Materials and methods: Thirty-three edentulous patients who experienced difficulties when using hard denture bases because of changes in denture-supporting tissues were accepted for the study and randomly received Molloplast B, GC Reline Soft, Silagum Comfort, or Mollosil Plus relines. Performance of the materials was evaluated using nine criteria at 3, 6, and 12 months: physical integrity, surface detail, adhesion, color, odor, plaque accumulation, resilience, hygiene, and mucosal condition. A four-point categorized scale (1＝poor, 2＝fair, 3＝good, 4＝excellent) was used. Unscheduled maintenance events and the presence of fungal colonization were also recorded. Results: The percentage of patients available at 3, 6, and 12 months were 91%, 91%, and 66%. Main reasons for dropouts and discontinuation were fractured dentures and patient dissatisfaction. At 6 months, 96% of the performance scores were good or excellent and the largest changes were observed for physical integrity, surface detail, color, and fungal colonization. Fungal colonization was the most commonly observed problem and was the only reason of failure at 12 months. Conclusions: The clinical performance of all soft liners was slightly impaired over the 12-month observation. Except for cases showing extensive fungal colonization, the observed changes in clinical performance did not necessitate remaking of the dentures. Mollosil Plus showed a performance comparable to that of Molloplast B, and the other materials had slightly lower performance especially in terms of fungal colonization.

Candida albicans biofilms and MMA surface treatment influence the adhesion of soft denture liners to PMMA resin

“…Braz Oral Res., (São Paulo) 2014;28(1): [1][2][3][4][5][6] and aging of soft liner and denture base. 5 In order to prevent these problems, several denture base surface treatments have been proposed to increase the bond strength between these materials.…”

“…1 However, failure often occurs in adhesive bond between soft liner and denture base resin, resulting in tearing and material loss during clinical use. 2 This damage can increase surface roughness and create irregularities that act as sheltered sites where oral biofilms may accumulate over time. 3 These biofilms are mainly composed of C. albicans and may cause denture-induced stomatitis 4 or accelerate wear…”

Influence of cleansers and a phytotherapic against Candida albicans on the properties of denture liners

“…albicans counts were affected by the composition of the material evaluated. The silicone based material showed higher biofilm formation, suggesting that factors as material's composition and viscosity, ageing and fluids of the host could influence the interaction among substratum surfaces, Candida and biofilm formation 19 , since the denture liner that showed higher biofilm formation was not the same material that presented higher initial Ra. Thus, 14-day analysis showed similar changes in the different surfaces.…”

Effect of composition of experimental fluorinated soft lining materials on bond strength to denture base resin

“…Reliable adhesion of the lining material to the denture base is required in order to achieve proper function and long service life in the lining materials. However, the difficulty in obtaining a reliable bond between soft lining materials and (polymethyl methacrylate) (PMMA) denture-base polymers has often been discussed in previous studies [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] . The most common clinical failure of soft lining materials was attributed to rupture of the bond between the lining material and the denture base 30) .…”