Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: Part I—Literature review

Andres, Carl J.; Haug, Steven P.; Muñoz, Carlos; Bernal, Guillermo

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90339-c

Cited by 70 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Different materials have been used in the past to fabricate maxillofacial prosthesis including ivory, wax, metal, wood and recently polymers such as silicone elastomers, polyurethane elastomers and acrylic resins [2]. Since the introduction of silicone elastomer by Barnhart in 1960, it has been widely used as the material of choice for fabricating maxillofacial prosthesis because of its chemical inertness, durability, ease of manipulation and biocompatibility [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Nano Silicon Dioxide Addition on Some Properties of Heat Vulcanized Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer

Tukmachi¹,

Ali²

2017

IOSRJPBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Nano Silicon Dioxide Addition on Some Properties of Heat Vulcanized Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer

Tukmachi¹,

Ali²

2017

IOSRJPBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is well acknowledged that the use of silicone elastomers for facial prostheses is accompanied by clinical problems such as gradual discoloration, and degradation of physical and mechanical properties (Andres et al 1992;Polyzois 1999;Keyf 2002). This limits the mean longevity of the prostheses to 13-28 months, depending on the location of the prosthesis (auricular, orbital or nasal) (Visser et al 2008;Karakoca et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial biofilms on facial prostheses

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The composition of microbial biofilms on silicone rubber facial prostheses was investigated and compared with the microbial flora on healthy and prosthesis-covered skin. Scanning electron microscopy showed the presence of mixed bacterial and yeast biofilms on and deterioration of the surface of the prostheses. Microbial culturing confirmed the presence of yeasts and bacteria. Microbial colonization was significantly increased on prosthesis-covered skin compared to healthy skin. Candida spp. were exclusively isolated from prosthesis-covered skin and from prostheses. Biofilms from prostheses showed the least diverse band-profile in denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) whereas prosthesis-covered skin showed the most diverse band-profile. Bacterial diversity exceeded yeast diversity in all samples. It is concluded that occlusion of the skin by prostheses creates a favorable niche for opportunistic pathogens such as Candida spp. and Staphylococcus aureus. Biofilms on healthy skin, skin underneath the prosthesis and on the prosthesis had a comparable composition, but the numbers present differed according to the microorganism.

show abstract

“…In the past several materials have been utilized to fabricate maxillofacial prosthesis include wood, wax, ivory, metal and recently polymers such as silicone elastomer, polyurethane elastomers, and acrylic resins (3) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Nano Titanium Oxide Addition on Color Stability on Two Types of Maxillofacial Silicone Materials

2017

IJSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: Part I—Literature review

Cited by 70 publications

References 28 publications

Effect of Nano Silicon Dioxide Addition on Some Properties of Heat Vulcanized Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer

Effect of Nano Silicon Dioxide Addition on Some Properties of Heat Vulcanized Maxillofacial Silicone Elastomer

Microbial biofilms on facial prostheses

Effect of Nano Titanium Oxide Addition on Color Stability on Two Types of Maxillofacial Silicone Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About