IJOPRD

Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized and Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1109

Regard to Transverse Bond Strength
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized and

Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with Regard to Transverse
Bond Strength, Peel Bond Strength and Water Sorption:
An in vitro Study
1
Prasanna Laxmi Krishnappan, 2Ragavendra Jaiesh, 3TN Swaminathan

ABSTRACT in the peel bond strength and water sorption property of

Purpose: This is an in vitro study for comparative evaluation of
transverse bond strength, peel bond strength and water sorption
properties between heat polymerized and auto-polymerized
resins.
Materials and methods: Two denture soft liners (Molloplast-B,
Coe-Soft) were investigated. A total number of 60 specimens
were used. Twenty specimens were used for evaluation of each
physical property of soft liner. For transverse bond strength,
ten specimens (64 × 2.5 × 10 mm) of each liner were made
by processing the denture liners with heat cure polymethyl
methacrylate (Meliodent). All specimens for transverse bond
strength were conducted on samples immersed in distilled
water at 37°C for 50 hours by using three-point transverse
flexural tests in a Lloyd’s Universal Testing Machine and
transverse bond strength was calculated based on the
maximum load, span length, breadth and thickness. Another
set of ten specimens of (75 × 25 × 3 mm) of each denture liner
were bonded over 25 mm of heat cure PMMA and separated
over the remaining 50 mm of acrylic plate to estimate the peel
bond strength. The peel bond strength were conducted on
specimens which were dried at room temperature for 48 hours
and tested at 21 ± 1°C in a Lloyd’s testing machine that was
linked to an IBM Compatible Computer. The specimens were
deformed with a cross head speed of 5 mm/minute according
to ASTMD-903 and peel bond strength was calculated when
peel angle was 180°. For water sorption tests, ten disc shaped
samples of each liner of 50 mm in diameter and 0.5 mm in
thickness were fabricated. After polymerization of the liners,
the samples were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for
7 days. After one week, excess moisture was removed and
each sample was weighed using electronic weighing machine.
Results: The transverse bond strength of Molloplast-B and
Coe-Soft were almost similar and did not show any significant
difference in their values. But, there is a significant decrease
1
Associate Professor, 2Professor, 3Head
1
Department of Prosthodontics, Tagore Dental College and
Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu India
2,3
Department of Prosthodontics, Sree Balaji Dental College
and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Corresponding Author: Prasanna Laxmi Krishnappan
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Tagore
Dental College and Hospital, Rathinamangalam, Vandalur
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, e-mail: kpl007@hotmail.com
International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, July-September 2014;4(3):61-67
Molloplast-B and Coe-Soft.
Conclusion: The reason for transverse bond strength
results being similar for both the liners is because they were
polymerized chemically with the denture base resins and this
chemical affinity could have made its bond strength almost
equal. Since, there is a decrease in the peel bond strength of
Molloplast-B, the chances of stripping of the liner at the flanges
of the denture is minimal. The decrease in water sorption
of Molloplast-B can be expected to retain the bond with the
denture and sustain the resilience property of the material for
a longer time.
Keywords: Soft liners, Water sorption, Transverse flexural
tests, Peel bond strength, Resilience.
How to cite this article: Krishnappan PL, Jaiesh R, Swa-
minathan TN. Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized
and Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with Regard to Transverse
Bond Strength, Peel Bond Strength and Water Sorption: An
in vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;4(3):61-67.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
INTRODUCTION
The success of complete or partial dentures depends
on maximum comfort, pleasing esthetics and adequate
function. Many denture wearers develop soreness of
oral mucosa beneath the denture base. The soft tissue of
denture bearing area is interposed between the denture
base on one side and alveolar bone on the other side
resulting in chronic soreness. This problem is even more
pronounced in those patients who suffer from diabetes
mellitus and other debilitating diseases.
In the past, the management of such patients was
difficult but recent development of materials in prostho-
dontics has contributed to more efficient treatment of
denture-abused tissues.
Tissue conditioners and soft liners1 are two types of
materials which provide a cushioning effect for the irri-
tated tissue, while tissue conditioners help the soft
tissues to recover, they are intended for short-term use
only. Main disadvantage of tissue conditioner is that
when the patient tends to wear a complete denture with
61
Prasanna Laxmi Krishnappan et al
Table 1: Materials used
No. Name Type Form Company
1 Molloplast-B Heat cure Single Detax,
component Germany
paste
2 Coe-Soft Cold cure Powder liquid GC, America
3 Meliodent Heat cure Powder liquid Heraeus,
Kulzer
which a tissue conditioner2 is coated after an extended
period, it hardens and roughens continued leaching of
the plasticizer from the tissue conditioner makes its use-
ful limited.
Due to this disadvantage of tissue conditioners, long-
term management of abused oral tissues in denture
wearers was frustrating to the prosthodontist, until the
introduction of soft denture liners by ‘Mathews’ in 1942.
Plasticized polyvinyl chloride was one of the first soft
lining materials, used with acrylic resin dentures. It was
the forerunner or the development of resilient liners. They
have the property of springiness3 which means returns
to the original shape after they are stressed.
In 1958, Lammie and Storer classified processed resi-
lient materials as natural rubber, polyvinyl chloride,
methyl methacrylate polymer and silicone. These resilient
liners are elastomer-polymers used in the treatment of
chronic soreness of mucosa beneath the dentures and
provide for preservation of supporting structure for a
long time. Soft liners are used with existing complete
dentures after heat processing or autopolymerization.4
Many investigators have reported that the soft liners can
be used from 6 months to 5 years, depending upon the
type of soft liner. Among the materials used for soft liners,
vinyl5 and acrylic polymers are made resilient6 by adding
oil or alcohol type of plasticizer or by copolymerization
with a monomer. Soft liners have shock absorbing nature
and such a property is useful in treating patients with
ridge atrophy, bony undercuts, bruxism, xerostomia, etc.
A major drawback, however, is lack of a durable bond7 to
the denture base. Obviously, a soft liner with better bond
strength will be the choice for clinical use. Long-term
exposure8,9 to saliva and other liquids leads to possible
water sorption also. This decreases the mechanical pro-
perties of the soft liner. Solubility can also occur, resulting
in leaching out of unreacted monomer, with a possible of
soft tissue reaction. So, the main purpose of this study
was to evaluate the transverse bond strength, peel bond
strength and water sorption properties of two different
types of soft liners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two commercially available lining materials were used
and the type of polymerization were different. Their
62
types, batch numbers and manufacturers are presented
in Table 1. Molloplast-B is a single component paste, and
Coe-Soft is a powder liquid system.
Twenty regular acrylic bars of dimension 64 mm in
length, 2.5 mm in height and 10 mm thick for each liner
were prepared from Meliodent denture base acrylic resin
according to manufacturer’s instructions in the silicone
rubber molds.10-14 After polymerization, the samples were
ground with 320 grit silicon carbide paper to remove the
surface impurities. The PMMA specimens, as shown in
Figure 1 for transverse bond strength, were prepared by
investing rectangular brass dies with 64 × 25 × 10 mm to
prepare the silicone rubber molds15 for the bars of acrylic
denture base resin. The hard and flexible silicone rubber
mold was further supported by dental stone in the flask.
This procedure was used to facilitate the easy removal of
processed samples from the flask. For optimal polyme-
rization, the flask was kept in like warm water at 40 to
45ºC and was heated to 70ºC in 20 minutes and main-
tained at the same temperature for 5 to 10 minutes and
then was cooled down slowly. After heat polymerization,
the brass spacer and the PMMA resin specimens were
removed from the mold. A 10 mm square selection was
cut in the center of each sample to create space for adding
liner. The Meliodent bars were placed back into the mold
and the auto polymerizing and het polymerizing liners
were placed in the 10 mm square sections, trial packed16
and polymerized according to manufacturer’s instruc-
tions. After deflasking excess material was removed by
trimming and immersed in distilled water at 37ºC for
50 hours. The twenty specimens of each material were
divided into two groups as G1 for Molloplast-B and G-4
for Coe-Soft and the force measurements were made with
a Lloyd’s testing machine at a cross head speed of 0.05 cm/
minute by using a three-point bending flexure with a span
of 50 mm. The transverse bond strength was calculated17
as maximum load and span length divided by breadth
Fig. 1: Samples for transverse bond strength
 IJOPRD

Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized and Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with Regard to Transverse Bond Strength

Fig. 2: Samples for peel bond strength Fig. 3: Samples for water sorption

and thickness. After recording the values, the data analy-
sis was done by using the statistical package for social
science (SPSS) version 4.0.1.
For determining the peel bond strength,18-20 again a
rectangular brass dimension of 75 × 25 × 3 mm was used
to form the silicone rubber mold for preparing the acrylic
plates of denture base acrylic resin. The silicone rubber
molds were invested in the flask and further supported
by stone. A total number of twenty specimens were made
by using heat cured PMMA as mentioned earlier. The
liners were bonded over 25 mm of an acrylic resin sample
and separated over the remaining 50 mm of acrylic plate.
The area that was not to be bonded with the liner was
50 mm long. For Molloplast-B, the area not to be bonded
was painted with a layer of Coe-lubricant, supplied by
the manufacturer. The liners were then packed and
cured according to manufacturer’s instructions. Again
the twenty samples were divided into two groups as G2
for Molloplast-B and G-5 for Coe-Soft to determine the
peel bond strength as shown in Figure 2. Before testing,
all samples were stored dry at room temperature for
48 hours. All were tested at 21 ± 1ºC in a Lloyd’s Universal
Testing Machine that was linked to an IBM compatible
computer. The specimens were deformed with a cross-
head speed of 5 mm/minute according to the American
Society of Testing and Materials, ASTMD-903. The peel
bond strength was calculated at a peeling angle of 180º
and based on the force applied divided by the width of
specimens in the peeling area along with the ratio of
stretched to unstretched length. After finding the values,
the same SPSS version 4.0.1 was used for data analysis.
To evaluate the water sorption property,21-25 a disk-
supported by dental stone in the flask. Again the samples
were named as G3 for Molloplast-B and G6 for Coe-Soft
liners. After polymerization of the disk shaped samples
with the liners, the samples were dried in the desiccator
at 37ºC for 7 days. After storage interval of 1 week, the
samples were removed and overt moisture on the surface
was removed quickly,26, 27 as shown in Figure 3, and each
sample was weighed in the electronic weighing machine.
The water sorption value was determined by initial weight
of the desiccated sample and weight after the sample has
been saturated divided by the surface area and expressed
in mgm/cm2. The values were determined by SPSS ver-
sion 4.0.1.
RESULTS
The data obtained after the transverse bond strength
(Table 2), peel bond strength (Table 3) and water sorption
tests (Table 4) were evaluated by the statistical package
Table 2: Comparison of the mean, standard deviation and test of
significance of mean values between two different study groups
for transverse bond strength
Force N/mm2 Molloplast-B Coe-Soft
1.6731 2.1388 ± 0.379 2.1345 ± 0.448
Table 3: Comparison of the mean, standard deviation and test of
significance of mean values between two different study groups
for peel bond strength
Force N/mm2 Molloplast-B Coe-Soft
33.925 1.4988 ± 0.176 3.3394 ± 0.160
Table 4: Comparison of the mean, standard deviation and test of
significance of mean values between two different study groups
for water sorption

shaped stainless steel mold of diameter 50 mm and a Soft liner Initial Final Sorption value
weight after weight after mg/cm2
thickness of 0.5 mm was used to prepare the sample disks
desiccation desiccation
in accordance with the International Standards Organi- W1 mg W2 mgm
zation Specification no 1567. The stainless steel mold was Molloplast-B 205.964 2060.74 0.0610
invested in a hard but flexible silicone rubber and further Coe-Soft 2805.65 2642.250 0.33

International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, July-September 2014;4(3):61-67 63

Prasanna Laxmi Krishnappan et al
Graph 1: The comparison of transverse bond strength, peel bond
strength and water sorption between Molloplast-B and Coe-Soft
SPSSPC and SPSS version 4.0.1 further calculated by mean
and standard deviation. In the present study, p ≤ 0.05
was considered as the level of significance.
Table 2 presents the transverse bond strength of two
different soft liners and there was no statistical diffe-
rence (p > 0.05) between the two soft liners. Table 3 clearly
indicates that there is a significant decrease (p < 0.0001)
in the peel bond strength of heat polymerized soft liner
(Molloplast-B) compared with autopolymerized soft liner
(Coe-Soft). Based on the bar diagram in Graph 1, the water
sorption property of Molloplast-B was less (p < 0.008)
compared to Coe-Soft soft liner. All the above-mentioned
mean values were compared by student’s independent
t-tests and illustrated in the bar diagram in Graph 1.
DISCUSSION
Soft liners were introduced in prosthodontics for their
salient properties, such as long-term resilience and
durable adhesion to the existing denture base, making the
use of complete dentures more comfortable and patients
enjoy the benefits with satisfaction. Soft liners can be
processed either by heat curing or by autopolymerization.
Laboratory processed materials are used as long-
term denture liners28 for the management of sore or
atrophied mucosa, traumatic ulceration and obturators.
The desirable properties of the soft liners are high bond
strength to the denture base, dimensional stability of the
liner during and after processing, permanent softness or
resilience,29 low water sorption, color stability and ease of
processing. Bond strength between the soft liner and the
denture base resin and the water sorption phenomenon
of a soft liner are two physical properties which affect
the long-term use of a soft liner.
This study was conducted using a laboratory
processed heat-cured soft liner (Molloplast-B) and a self-
64
cured soft liner (Coe-Soft). Molloplast-B supplied in the
paste form, is a silicone-based soft liner composed30,31
of dimethylsiloxane polymer, triethoxysilanol as cross-
linking agent and dibutyltin dilaurate as catalyst. The
adhesive consists of silicone polymer in a volatile solvent.
Coe-Soft, a plasticizing self-curing acrylic material—
consists of polymethyl methacrylate and peroxide
initiator in the powder and aromatic esters, ethanol and
tertiary amines in liquid. A problem of concern to the
prosthodontist is failure of adhesion of soft liners with
the denture base resin. Bond failure is initiated by routine
masticatory stresses32 having various components of
forces, manual cleaning of dentures and forces from
parafunctional habits.
The more fundamental importance of adequate bond
strength33 between the denture reline and denture base
polymers is to ensure the retention of the reline polymer
on the surface of the denture base to maintain the func-
tion of the reline polymer. A weakened bond between
the denture base and the soft liner allows percolation of
oral fluids,34 which can increase staining and harboring
of bacteria, whereas complete bond failure35 inevitably
results in the delamination of the reline polymer.36 The
test of such bond strength is important37,38 and a trans-
verse bond test was performed to evaluate it. Long-term
service ability of soft liners primarily depends upon bond
strength and the ability to resist water sorption.39 Assess-
ment of bond strength was done with two modes of test,
transverse bond test and peel bond test. Results revealed
that the transverse bond strength of silicone soft liner
(Molloplast-B) was 2.1388 N/mm2. The transverse bond
strength of acrylic soft liner (Coe-Soft) was found to be
2.135 N/mm2. An analysis of the result clearly shows that
the two materials have almost similar transverse bond
strength values. It is common knowledge that a material
bonded to a denture base resin by heat curing method
will have comparatively more bond strength than the
material which is added to the base resin by auto-
polymerization: in contrast, this study showed that Coe-
Soft (auto-polymerizing resin) had a transverse bond
strength almost similar to that of Molloplast-B40 (heat
polymerization silicone). One possible explanation for
this could be that inspite of being polymerized chemically
with the denture base resin, Coe-Soft is chemically similar
to the denture base resin, i.e. it has a methacrylate group as
a recurring unit. This chemical affinity could have made
its bond strength almost equal to that of Molloplast-B,
which is chemically dissimilar to the denture base resins.
Peel bond test is believed to stimulate the horizontal
component of the masticatory forces that causes lateral
displacement41 of the denture. This displacement may

Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized and Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with Regard to Transverse Bond Strength
cause stripping of the liner at the flanges of the denture,
particularly the distolingual flange of the mandibular
denture at the mylohyoid eminence and the distobuccal
flange of the maxillary denture in the tuberosity region.
Results of the peel bond strength conducted in the study
revealed that the peel bond strength of Molloplast-B was
1.48 N/mm and Coe-Soft was 3.339 N/mm. Thus, the peel
bond strength for Coe-Soft has been found to be more
than twice the value for Molloplast-B. This is in agreement
with the results of Omar Kutay.42 He reported a bond
strength of 0.640 N/mm for Molloplast-B and 3.090 for an
acrylic copolymer (Coe-Supersoft). Wright23 reported a
peel bond strength of 4.97 N/mm for Molloplast-B which
is greater than the peel bond strength in this study,
whereas Sinobad et al reported a peel bond strength of
1.8 N/mm for Molloplast-B. For the results, it could be found
that the chemical affinity was a vital factor in increasing
the bonding of a soft liner with the denture base resin.
Water sorption test reveals a sorption value of 0.061
mg/cm2 for Molloplast-B and 0.33 mg/cm2 for Coe-Soft.
Dental acrylic resins absorb water and expand slowly over
a period of time. This expansion is a volumetric change
and therefore is expressed in three dimensions. Water
molecules act according to laws of diffusion. According
to Ristic and Carr,43 the diffusion presumably occurs
between the macromolecules, which are forced slightly
apart. This separation renders the molecules mobile, and
the inherent stresses created during heat curing of the
acrylic resin can be relieved with consequent intermo-
lecular relaxation and possible change in the shape of
the denture. Significant changes occurring as a result of
water sorption are those that affect the occlusion. These
changes affect both vertical and horizontal dimensions.
The change in centric occlusion after water sorption is
the result of expansion in the horizontal and vertical
planes. Horizontal expansion leads to cross arch changes
and unplanned movement of individual teeth. Increase
in occlusal vertical dimension reduces the interocclusal
distance and the patient may experience discomfort.
Therefore, it is necessary to quantify the amount of altera-
tion in occlusion caused by water sorption. Knowledge of
the time required to reach equilibrium after water sorp-
tion helps the clinician to fit the denture at appropriate
time. Increase water sorption will eventually lead to loss
of elasticity. Compromised elasticity results in dama-
ging occlusal forces exerted over the underlying mucosa.
Ideally, a soft liner must also be resistant to imbibitions
of fluids in the mouth which can lead to discoloration
of the soft liner. Consequently, swelling of the liner and
potential growth of micro organisms are subsequent
sequelae. Release of cured or soluble products from
the soft liner may also occur which would subject the
International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, July-September 2014;4(3):61-67
IJOPRD
patient to unknown substances of undermined biologic
activity.
The balance between leaching out of plasticizers44
and absorption of water or saliva affects the compliance
and dimensional stability of the relined dentures. When
the material swells due to water sorption, stress builds
up between the bonding surfaces and the viscoelastic
properties of the resilient liners change.45 The material
becomes brittle and failure of bonding occurs. The present
study revealed comparatively greater water sorption by
acrylic based soft liner (Coe-Soft). The results of this study
was similar to the study of El-Hadary and Drummond21
and the values were close to the study of Collis for
silicone based liner (Molloplast-B). These results were
in agreement with Kawano et al24 who reported a values
of 0.23 mg/cm2 for Molloplast-B. After 1 week, the water
sorption value of the plasticized acrylic resin soft liner
(Coe-Soft) was 0.46% in this study. Mese et al46 compared
the effect of storage duration on the hardness and tensile
bond strength of silicone and acrylic resin based resilient
denture liners to processed denture base acrylic resin
and found that the prolonged water sorption resulted in
higher hardness values and lower bond strength values.
The silicone soft liner (Molloplast-B) gets cross-
linked by heat application which could explain its lesser
water sorption. Increased sorption by the acrylic liners
(Coe-Soft) could be due to the plasticizer content and
also the loss of ethanol. Coe-Soft contains ethyl alcohol
and increased water sorption can lead to early failure
of the bond and hence the autopolymerizing Coe-Soft
material should be used for a shorter period of time,
while Molloplast-B, due to its lesser water sorption, can
be expected to retain the bond for a longer time. This
property can be expected to sustain the resilience of the
material for a long time.
The recent research conducted by Chladek47 et al
explains the addition of silver nano particles concentra-
tion ranging from 20 to 40 ppm to both silicone-based and
acrylic-based soft liners and exhibited decrease in bond
strength and increase in water sorption but not worse
than those of the materials without silver nanoparticles
and enhanced in vitro antifungal efficiency.
An ideal soft liner possessing all the required attri-
butes for the intended purposes is yet to be made avail-
able. Further studies may pave the way to introduce a
soft liner which could fulfill all the basic requirements.
CONCLUSION
• Transverse bond strengths of heat-cured soft liner
(Molloplast-B) and a self-cured soft liner (Coe-Soft)
were almost similar.
65
Prasanna Laxmi Krishnappan et al
• Peel bond strength of autopolymerizing soft liner
(Coe-Soft) was greater than the peel bond strength
of heat-cured soft liner (Molloplast-B).
• The heat-cured soft liner (Molloplast-B) showed lesser
water sorption than the self-curing soft liner.
REFERENCES
1. Brown D. Resilient soft liners and tissue conditioners. Br Dent
J 1988;164(11):357-360.
2. Bryan, Ellis B, Lamb DJ, Nakash SA. Variations in the elastic
modulus of a soft lining material. Br Dent J 1980;149(3):79-82.
3. Gronet PM, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. Resiliency of surface
sealed temporary soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 1997;
77(4):370-374.
4. Skinners, Philips EW, Anusavice KJ. The science of dental
materials. 10th ed. Co. Philadelphia; 1996. p. 246-248.
5. Mccabe JF. A polyvinyl siloxane denture soft lining material.
J Dent 1998;26(5-6):521-526.
6. Von Fraunhofer, Sicihinia. Characterisation of the physical
properties of resilient denture liners. Int J Prosthodont 1994;
7(2):120-128.
7. Johnson W, Duncanson. Variables affecting silicone Poly-
methyl methacrylate interfacial bond strengths. J Prostho-
dont 1993;2(1):13-18.
8. Wagner WC, Dootz KR, Koran A. Dynamic viscoelastic
properties of processed soft denture liners. Part-I Initial
properties. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(5):471-475.
9. Wag ner WC, Kawano, Dootz R, Koran A. Dy namic
viscoelastic properties of processed soft denture liners. Part-
II. Effect of aging. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(2):299-304.
10. Mahado Cucci AL, Vergani CE, Maria EG. Water sorption,
solubility and bond strength of two autopolymerizing acrylic
resins and one heat polymerizing acrylic resin. J Prosthet
Dent 1998;80(4):434-438.
11. Machado AL, Edurado C, Vergani, Enuice, Claudia A. Effect
of heat treatment on the linear dimensional change of hard
chair side reline resin. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(6):611-615.
12. Lucia A, Cucci M, Giampaolo E, Leonardi, Vergani.
Unrestricted linear dimensional changes of two hard chair
side reline resins and heat cured acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent
1996;76(4):414-417.
13. Lewinstein I, Zelster C, Mayer C, Tal Y. Transverse bond
strength of repaired acrylic resin strips and temperature
rise of dentures relined with VLC resin. J Prosthet Dent
1995;74(4):392-396.
14. Emmer TJ, Vaidyanathan J, Vaidyanathan TK. Bond strength
of permanent soft denture liners bonded to the denture base.
J Prosthet Dent 1995 1995;74(6):595-600.
15. Moodhy S, Al-Athel, Jagger RG. Effect of test method on the
bond strength of a silicone resilient denture lining material.
J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(5):535-540.
16. Kutay O. Comparison of tensile and peel bond strength of
resilient liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(5):525-530.
17. Jagger RG, Al Athel MS, Jagger DC, Vowles RW. Some
variables influencing the bond strength between PMMA and
a silicone denture lining material. Int J Prosthodont 2002;
15(1):55-58.
18. Sergetz, Kulak, Gedi R , Taskonak. The effect of thermocycling
on peel strength of six soft lining materials. J Oral Rehabil
2002;29(6):583-587.
66
19. Takashi Y, Chai J, Law D. Shear Bond strength of denture
reline polymers to denture base polymers. Int J Prosthodont
2001;14(3):271-275.
20. Takashi Y, Chai J. Assessment of shear bond strength between
three denture reline materials and adventure base acrylic
resin. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(6):531-535.
21. El-Hadary A, Drummond JL. Comparative study of water
sorption, solubility and tensile bond strength of two soft
lining materials. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(3):356-365.
22. Braden, Causton BE. Tissue conditioners III: Water immersion
characteristics. J Dent Re 1971;50(6):144-147.
23. Braden D, Wright PS. Water absorption and water solubility of
soft lining for acrylic dentures. J Dent Res 1983;62(60):764-768.
24. Kawano F, Dootz ER, Craig RG. Sorption and solubility of 12
soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72(4):393-397.
25. Kazanji, Watkinson AC. Soft lining materials, their absorp-
tion and solubility in artificial saliva. BR Dent JK 1988;165(10):
91-94.
26. Water MG, Jagger. Winter-Water sorption of RTV Silicone
soft denture lining material. J Dent 1996;24(1-2):105-108.
27. Parr GR, Rueggeberg FR. In vitro hardness, water sorption
and resin solubility of laboratory processed and auto
polymerized long term resilient denture liners over one year
storage. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(2):139-144.
28. Kawano F, Ohguri T, Koran A, Matsumoto, Ichikawa T.
Influence of lining design of three processed soft denture
liners on cushioning effect. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26(12):
962-968.
29. Murata, Mccabe, Jepson, Hamada. The influence of immersion
solutions on the visco elasticity of temporary soft lining
mater. Dent Mater 1996;12(1):19-24.
30. Wright PS. Composition and properties of soft lining
materials for acrylic dentures. J Dent 1981;9(3):297-300.
31. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed; 2002. p. 668-670.
32. Murata H, Taguchi N, Hamada T. Kawamura M. Mccabe.
Dynamic viscoelasticity of soft liners and masticatory
function. J Dent Res 2002;81(2):123-128.
33. Amin WN. Fletcher, Ritchie. Nature of interface between
PMMA denture base materials and soft lining materials.
Presented at the annual conference for the study of prosthetic
dentistry in April 1981. J Dent 1981;9(4):336-346.
34. Wright PS. Characterisation of the rupture properties of
denture soft lining materials. J Dent Res 1980;59(3):614-619.
35. Morrow RM, Rudd KD, Eissmam HF. Dental laboratory
procedures. Complete Dentures. 2nd ed. 1980;1:432-445.
36. Thomas CJ, Mori T. Resilient lining materials for dentures.
Aust Prosthodont J 1993;(7):45-47.
37. Dootz ER, Koran, Craig RG. Comparison of the physical
properties of 11 soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 1992;
67(5):707-712.
38. Jepson NJA, Mccabe JF, Storer R. The clinical serviceability of
two permanent denture soft linings. Br Dent J 1994;177(1):11-16.
39. Yoeli Z, Miller V, Zeltser C. Consistency and softness of soft
liners. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(1):412-415.
40. Schmidt WF, Smith DE. A 6 years retrospective study of
Molloplast-B lined dentures. Part II linear serviceability.
J Prosthet Dent 1983;50(4):459-462.
41. Sauer JL. A clinical evaluation of Silastic 390 as a lining
material for dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1996;16(4):650-660.
42. Kutay O. Comparison of tensile and peel bond strength of
resilienet liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(5):525-530.
 IJOPRD

Comparative Evaluation of Heat-Polymerized and Auto-Polymerized Soft Liners with Regard to Transverse Bond Strength

43. Ristic B, Carr L. Water sorption by denture acrylic resin and
consequent changes in vertical dimension. J Prosthet Dent
1987;58(6):689-693.
44. Gonzalez JB, Laney WR. Resilient materials for denture
prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16(3):438-444.
45. Gibbons TP, Craig RG. Resilient liners for dentures. J Prosthet
Dent 1960;10(4):664-668.
46. Mese A, Guzel KG. Effect of storage duration on the hardness
and tensile bond strength of silicone and acrylic resin based
resilient denture liners to a processed denture base acrylic
resin. J Prosthet Dent 2008 Feb;99(2):153-159.
47. Chladek G, Kasperskif, Barszczewska. Sorption, solubility,
bond strength and hardness of denture soft lining material.
Int J Molecul Sci 2012 Dec 27;14(1):563-574.

International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, July-September 2014;4(3):61-67 67