Dental Materials Journal 2008; 27(3): 440－447

Original Paper

A Prospective Study on the Clinical Performance of Polysiloxane Soft

Liners: One-year Results

Mustafa Murat MUTLUAY1,2, Serra OGUZ3, Finn FLØYSTRAND1, Erik SAXEGAARD1, Arife DOGAN3, Bulent BEK4
and I. Eystein RUYTER2
1
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo
2
NIOM, Nordic Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway
3
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
4
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
Corresponding author,  M. Murat MUTLUAY;  E-mail:  mmutluay@gmail.com

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.

Key words: Polysiloxane, Removable denture, Fungal colonization

Received Sep 18, 2007: Accepted Dec 19, 2007

soft liners continue to be the main problems limiting

INTRODUCTION
For patients who cannot tolerate a hard denture
base, soft liners are an important adjunct treatment
to help the patients adapt to their new dentures1).
A recent report indicated that some 75％ of
patients needed relining of the implant-supported
overdentures after an average of 7.8 months, and
soft liners were often favored as an alternative to
conventional hard relining materials2).
　　Use of soft lining materials was previously
considered as a temporary measure3). However,
several authors have reported on a long service life
of soft liners, sometimes remaining on the denture
for its full service life4-8).
　　A soft liner’s assessment criteria as listed
by many authors were, namely, resilience, tear
resistance, biocompatibility, lack of odor and taste,
adhesive bond strength, color stability, and resistance
to abrasion9-11). Although some of the material types
were reported to maintain these qualities for a longer
time than the others, loss of bonding to denture base
polymers and fungal colonization on and within the
their use9-11).
　　In the last decade, soft liners have been
improved and new materials have become available12).
However, there are few published studies which
effectively test the clinical performance of these
liners and provide documentation about their
serviceability.
　　The specific aim of this study was to assess the
clinical performance of three recently introduced
materials with relatively new formulations and
application methods, and to compare their clinical
performance with that of a well-studied, conventional
material serving as a control.
MATERIALS  AND  METHODS
Soft liner materials
The materials used in this study were, Molloplast
B, GC Reline Soft, Silagum Comfort, and Mollosil
Plus (Table 1). All the four materials are based
on polysiloxanes. They differ mainly in terms of
application technique, polymerization, and/or curing
 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447 441

cycle (Tables 1 and 2). Molloplast B is a heat- informed consent was obtained. The study protocol
cured, compression-molded material, and the other was reviewed and approved by the Human Ethics
soft liners are chairside relining materials which Committee at Gazi University’s Faculty of Medicine,
polymerize at room temperature. Ankara, Turkey.

Study population Treatment protocol

Subjects accepted for this study were edentulous
male (15) and female (18) patients (median age for all
patients was 65 years) who came to the prosthodon-
tics clinic at Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University in
Ankara, Turkey, with complaints relevant to clinical
indications for a soft liner therapy. These problems
arose from changes in the denture-bearing hard and
soft tissues, i.e., alveolar resorption or poor quality of
the denture-bearing mucosa1). Patients who needed
local relief of pressure for wound healing following
a surgical intervention or patients with other acute
problems were not included in this study, since such
indications usually require only short-term use of the
material limited to a few months. The distribution of
the patients is given in Table 3.
　　Subjects were accepted for this study after their
During the first appointment, a detailed examination
form was filled out and the oral condition of the
patient was recorded.
　　Subjects were distributed according to a
randomly generated treatment allocation to four soft
liner groups and received the liners accordingly. For
the Molloplast B group (n＝9), the tissue surface
of the patient’s denture was ground to obtain the
necessary space required. A thickness of 2－3 mm
was aimed at, but because of anatomical variations
and variations among the different patients’ dentures,
this was not always achieved. Consequently, the
dentures were border-molded and an impression
was taken with a eugenol-free impression paste
(Cavex Outline, Cavex, Holland). At the laboratory,
the recommended primer was applied as per the

Table 1 Materials used for the study

Brand names (Code)
Molloplast B (MLP)
Primo adhesive
GC Reline Soft (GCS)
GC Reline Primer R
Silagum Comfort (SLC)
Silagum Comfort Primer
Mollosil plus (MLS)
Mollosil plus Primer
Manufacturer
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
GC Co, Tokyo, Japan
GC Co, Tokyo, Japan
DMG, Hamburg, Germany
DMG, Hamburg, Germany
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
Processing method
Heat-cure
Recommended for Molloplast B. Apply and
let dry for 60-90 min.
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for GC Reline soft. Apply to
the surface and gently dry with air.
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Silagum AM Comfort.
Apply and let solvent dry for 1 min.
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Mollosil plus. Apply and
let solvent dry for one minute

Table 2 Chemical ingredients of the materials according to manufacturers’ information

Material Components Primer
MLP Condensation polysiloxane material, Mixture of methoxy and
PMMA, ethoxy silane derivatives
γ-methacryloyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane
GCS Silicon dioxide,
Ethyl acetate >90％
Vinyl dimethyl polysiloxane,
Hydrogen polysiloxane
SLC Vinyl polysiloxane, Hydrogen polysiloxane, Ethyl acetate, modified polyacrylate, additives
aerosil, additives
MLS Polydimethylsiloxane with functional Ethyl acetate 60-100％
groups, filler, pigments, platinum catalyst
PMMA＝Poly (methyl methacrylate)
442 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447

manufacturers’ recommendations and a standardized
curing cycle was used for processing the Molloplast
relines. The denture was then delivered to the
patient and necessary adjustments were made at
chair-side.
　　For chairside relining materials (n＝8 for each
group), the dentures were ground on the tissue
contacting surface in order to obtain adequate space
for the soft liner. This was done to a depth of 2 mm
as long as the denture thickness allowed. They were
coated with primer, relined with the soft liner, and
delivered to the patient at the same appointment
according to the manufacturers’ instructions.
　　Blinding in this study was not possible because
the different relining materials had very distinct
color differences. The clinicians had no previous
experience with the proprietary materials used; this
would reduce any bias introduced by familiarity with
one of the products.
　　Patients were instructed to clean the tissue
contacting surfaces of their dentures after every meal
using liquid soap and a regular toothbrush under
running water. They were thus instructed because
this was the most commonly used method which did
not require the patients to purchase any additional
material. The instructions were repeated during
every recall for a continuous level of motivation.
Data collection
Patient demographics included gender, age, and
occupation (Table 3). Furthermore, patients’ health
and medication usage, smoking history and their
oral hygiene practices were recorded. An intraoral
examination was carried out, and the results were
entered in an examination form. A second form was
filled out during the visits where the condition of the
liner was subjectively evaluated according to the nine
primary criteria (Table 4): physical integrity, surface
detail, adhesion, color, odor, plaque accumulation,
resilience, hygiene, mucosal condition of the patient
occasionally, and signs of fungal colonization5).
Fungal colonization was recorded as P＝present or
NP＝not present; the other parameters were assigned
scores on a four-point categorized scale (Table 4).

Table 3 Data collected during the study

Demographics Gender distribution Male 15
Female 18
Age distribution (mean＝65.5) 40-49 2
50-59 9
60-69 9
>70 13
History Smoking habits Smoking 3
Non-smoking 30
Medication usage Using at least one 14
medication regularly
Not on medication 19
Denture hygiene practices before Toothbrush and toothpaste 2
the study Toothbrush and soap 7
Soap only 19
Immersing into NaOCI 2
Cleaning tablets 3
Denture Upper 4
Lower 29

Table 4 Criteria used for the evaluation of the liners and the scoring system used to record the condition of the liner
Mucosal condition evaluation
Liner conditon evaluation
1-4 rating
1) Physical integrity: Tearing loss of material
2) Surface detail: Loss of surface texture, roughening
3) Adhesion: Failure of the bond 1-4 rating
4) Color: Comparison with fresh unused material (1＝poor, 2＝fair,
5) Odor: Presence of any distinctive odor 3＝good, 4＝excellent
6) Plaque accumulation: Surface coverage with plaque
7) Hygiene: Surface coverage with food particles
8) Resilience: Comparison with fresh unused material P-NP rating
9) Fungal colonization: Presence of colonization (P＝present, NP＝not present)
 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447 443

The worst site where the most obvious changes were

observed was also recorded where applicable.
　　Patients were recalled at 3, 6, and 12 months
for an evaluation of the liner, and unscheduled
maintenance events were also recorded. Dropouts
from the study population were also categorized and
recorded at the time of the event either as patient not
satisfied, patient lost to follow-up, adverse reaction,
or fracture of denture.
Statistical analysis
Collected data were analyzed using a SPSS statistical
package (version 14.0). The outcomes were changes
in primary end-points and fungal colonization. A
comparison of the material performance over time
and among the material types was done by chi-
square and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. The 12-
month controls had too much lost data. Therefore,
the main statistical analysis was carried out on data
obtained from the 3 and 6-months controls.
RESULTS
Overall performance
The recall rate at 3, 6, and 12 months were 91％,
91％, and 66％. Table 5 lists the dropouts and dis-
continuers. The reason for discontinuing was severe
fractures which required remaking or rebasing of the
dentures. Five lower dentures (15％) had fractured
between baseline and 12 months.
　　The main reason for dropout was patient dissat-
isfaction with the denture. Only one adverse reaction
was recorded during the study: a female patient
using the MLS reported a burning sensation on the
mucosa and generalized redness was observed.
　　Among the followed relines, four were on
upper dentures. Two of these patients were lost to
follow-up at 6 and 12 months. Therefore, a proper
statistical analysis was not possible. Nonetheless,
no recognizable differences were observed between
upper and lower dentures in terms of material
performance.

Table 5 Dropouts and discontinued patients and reasons

3 months 6 months 12 months
MLP 0 0 2d,d
GCS 1 a
0 4b,b,d,d
SLC 0 0 1a
MLS 2a,c 0 1d
Superscript letters show the reasons for dropouts and discontinuers: a patient not satisfied, b lost to follow up, c adverse
reaction, and discontinued patients d severe fracture of denture requiring new prosthesis.

Table 6 Some of the parameters followed during the study. The values show the distribution of scores for every material
type at each recall
3 months 6 months 12 months
Excellent

Excellent

Excellent
Good

Good

Good
Poor

Poor

Poor
Fair

Fair

Fair

n n n
MLP 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 2 5 7
GCS 0 0 5 2 7 0 0 5 2 7 1 0 1 1 3
Physical integrity SLC 0 0 3 5 8 0 0 3 5 8 0 1 2 4 7
MLS 1 0 0 5 6 1 1 1 3 6 0 1 1 3 5

MLP 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 2 5 7
GCS 0 1 1 5 7 0 2 0 5 7 1 0 1 1 3
Surface detail SLC 1 0 1 6 8 1 0 4 3 8 1 0 3 3 7
MLS 0 0 1 5 6 0 1 2 3 6 0 1 1 3 5

MLP 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 2 5 7
GCS 0 1 1 5 7 0 2 0 5 7 0 1 1 1 3
Adhesion to denture base SLC 1 0 1 6 8 1 0 4 3 8 1 0 3 3 7
MLS 0 0 1 5 6 0 1 2 3 6 0 1 1 3 5

MLP 0 0 4 5 9 0 1 5 3 9 0 1 3 2 7
GCS 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 3 4 7 0 0 2 1 3
Color stability SLC 0 0 3 5 8 0 1 3 4 8 0 1 3 3 7
MLS 0 0 1 5 6 0 1 2 3 6 0 1 1 3 5
444 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447

Performance outcomes
Physical integrity: Average physical integrity score
of the materials changed after 3 months (Table 6).
The greatest decrease was with the GCS material
where five of the seven dentures (71％) had problems
related to physical integrity. This change was
significantly different from MLP which had changes
on only two dentures (22％) after 3 and 6 months
(p＝0.049). No other significant differences were
observed among the materials. Of the 33 relined
dentures, an average point of 3.5 was rated with
the lowest score of 2 which was given to one denture
only, and for 13 dentures (39％) the score was still 4
after one year. The MLP material had more scores
of 4 than the other materials. SLC also showed an
early decrease in physical integrity where three of
the samples had a decreased score after 3 months.
Failures were usually seen where the material was
thin and not bonded to the denture base. These
areas were limited in size and did not require any
maintenance (Fig. 1).
　　Surface detail: Scores given to visually assessed
changes in surface detail or deterioration in surface
texture, changed significantly after 3 and 6 months
(p＝0.008 for both). No significant differences were
found among the materials. The changes were
often observed as roughening of the surface and
loss of shiny appearance ― which was first observed
when the liner surface was cured against mucosa.
Changes in surface detail were mostly observed in
the posterior area.
　　Adhesion: Adhesion to denture base polymer was
not significantly changed after 6 months compared
to baseline, and no significant differences were
found among the materials. 56％ of the dentures
still had the excellent score after 12 months, and
only three (9％) of the relines showed small failures
on the borders of the denture which did not require

Fig. 1 Clinical example of a MLP soft liner at 12 months’ Fig. 2 Clinical example of a GCS material at 12 months’
recall. Note the good condition of the liner in recall. Note the fungal colonization and problems
terms of physical integrity and surface detail as concerning physical integrity.
well as fungal colonization.

Table 7 Percentages of soft liners with fungal colonization and failures

3 months 6 months 12 months

(＋) n (＋) n (＋) n
MLP 0 9 22 9 14 7
GCS 13 7 30 7 66 3
Fungal colonization SLC 13 8 75 8 83 7
MLS 0 6 0 6 20 5

MLP 0 9 0 9 14 7
GCS 0 7 0 7 33 3
Failure because of
SLC 0 8 0 8 56 7
fungal c.
MLS 0 6 0 6 20 5
 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447
repeating the relining procedure (Fig. 1).
　　Color change: Sixteen of the dentures (48％) were
rated one or two points lower at 3 months. Scores
at 3 and 6 months were significantly different from
baseline (p＝0.014). No significant differences were
found among the materials. Fading of the material
was uncommon, and the main reason for color change
was staining. The typical staining color was yellow-
brown, and this was patient-dependent rather than a
general finding. For three of the patients, an intense
color change was observed and the predominant
color was brown. The average scores after 6 and 12
months were 3.5 and 3.3 respectively.
　　Plaque accumulation and hygiene: The amount
of plaque found on the dentures, as well as hygiene,
were assessed visually. The surfaces of all the
liners were partly covered with plaque, with very
little variation among the patients. No significant
differences were found among the different materials
(p>0.05).
　　Resilience: Resilience of the materials was
assessed by comparing the liner to an unused sample,
and any detectable change was recorded. After 12
months, none of the soft liners showed any change
that could be detected by the clinician.
　　Condition of the mucosa: No indications of
change were observed after 3, 6, and 12 months,
except for one adverse reaction observed after 24
hours.
　　Colonization of the soft liner surface: Fungal
colonization of the soft liner surface was observed at
3 months in two patients (6％). At 12 months, 36％
of the dentures were affected with fungal colonization
at different levels (Table 7, Fig. 2). For all the
time periods, SLC and GCS had a higher degree of
colonization than the others. At 12 months, seven
patients (21％) were recorded as failure because of
extensive colonization (Table 6).
　　The largest differences among the materials
were observed for the colonization scores. At 12
months, only one of the dentures relined with MLS
showed visually detectable colonization and MLP
had colonization on only two of the dentures. At 6
months, MLS was significantly different from GCS
(p＝0.03) and SLC (p＝0.02).
DISCUSSION
The survival of an oral restoration is affected
by operator-dependant factors, design factors,
restoration material factors, intraoral location
factors, and patient-related factors13). Operator
factors are generally believed to be the most
important of these14). Our study was carried out in
a dental faculty environment by clinicians who are
competent in the field of prosthodontics. Applicabil-
ity of the clinical results to routine general dental
445
practice may thus be limited.
　　The percentages of patients available for follow-
up were 91％, 91％, and 66％ for 3, 6, and 12 months
respectively. At 12 months, three of the patients did
not want to continue and three of the dropouts were
patients that could not be reached. The dropout rate
appeared to be moderate, considering the relatively
high age of the patients.
　　Fatigue fracture of the denture base has
frequently been reported as the main reason for
discontinuing and this is ascribed to the decreased
thickness of the denture5,14,15). In the present study,
15 percent of the dentures fractured within one year.
　　Polysiloxanes are used in many biomaterial
applications because of their stability and lack of
toxicity. Although rarely reported and usually not
properly diagnosed, some adverse reactions to poly-
siloxanes in different regions of the body have been
reported15-17). One of the patients participating in our
study showed a reaction to the polysiloxane soft liner
MLS after 24 hours of contact, resembling a type 1
allergy to this material or to some other materials
used during the chairside relining procedure. This
patient wanted to withdraw from the study, and her
denture was relined with a conventional denture
base polymer. A history of allergy was also recorded
when this patient was first examined. Although no
additional information was available for this patient,
an allergic reaction was possible and this should be
kept in mind during treatments.
　　The term ‘physical integrity’ is related to the
general soundness and durability of the soft liner
materials5). It may also reflect the durability of the
materials during cleaning procedures where brushing
or other means of cleaning subject the reline to
various stresses. Failure is generally observed as
tearing of the material and loss of parts of the reline
during clinical use. MLP showed slightly better
performance at 12 months than the other materials
and significantly better than GCS. The clinical
significance of this finding was questionable because
the physical integrity problems were small. Failures
were observed where the thickness of the soft liner
was less than adequate or not properly bonded to the
denture base.
　　A recent study by Oguz et al.18) published a
ranking of tensile strength and tear resistance of
MLP, GCS, and SLC. The results with and without
thermocycling indicated that the tensile strength and
tear resistance results of MLP were not higher than
the others. The reason for performing better under
clinical conditions might be the result of differences
in the application procedure of the materials. The
MLP material was cured in the laboratory using
a conventional compression mold technique. As a
result, it was possible to maintain an ideal thickness
and optimum physical conditions during curing.
446 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447
The other materials (MLS, GCS, and SLC) might
have been negatively affected by less controllable
curing conditions during chairside application and
curing. The variable factors in terms of humidity,
temperature, and pressure present during the
curing of these materials could have caused poor
crosslinking and varying material thicknesses.
　　An intimate contact between a denture and
the supporting tissues is considered as one of the
key features of a successful removable denture.
Dentures must follow the contour and texture of
the mucosa for both retention purpose and hygiene
maintenance. The ability of a material to maintain
this is important for long-term clinical success. The
materials used in our study showed changes in the
surface texture starting from the third month. This
type of degradation problem was frequently reported
in previous publications4,5,8). MLP maintained the
surface texture better than the other materials,
which might be an indication of long-term success;
however, this difference was not statistically
significant. This was comparable to a study where
the dentures relined with MLP needed replacement
after 4－9 years of clinical service5). Degradation of
the materials resulting in changes in surface detail
and roughening was mostly observed in the posterior
region, which was probably a result of forces of
mastication affecting this region.
　　Soft liners rely on good adhesion to the denture
base to function properly. Adhesion of polysiloxane
soft liners to denture base polymer has occasionally
been pronounced as the weak link19). In particular
with the chairside polysiloxane soft liners, this has
been restated by many authors1,9,10,20,21). However,
some studies also reported on long-term clinical
serviceability of the MLP material4,5,7,8). After one
year of clinical service, the average score for the
adhesion of soft liners to denture base polymer was
still 3.9 for the current study. This result strongly
suggested that the adhesion obtained by these
systems was durable enough to withstand clinical use
for one year. Failure was observed only marginally,
and no relines required replacement after 12 months
of use. This was also supported by a previous study
which reported only slight edge failure of adhesion
for MLP4). No indications of adhesion failure were
reported for dropouts.
　　The type of color change observed throughout
the study was staining of the materials rather than
fading of the color. It did not affect the appearance
of the subject when using the denture. Three of
the dentures showed heavy staining and these
were related to smoking as expected. All the other
dentures showed an acceptable resistance to staining
after one year.
　　Other evaluation criteria such as plaque
retention, oral hygiene, condition of the mucosa, and
resilience remained optimal during the 12-month
period. These properties did not show any statistical
changes compared to baseline and did not indicate
any failure related to material performance.
　　Fungal colonization of the soft liner surface
was frequently observed in this study. Colonization
started at 3 months for GCS and SLC and at 6
months for MLP. Although the colonization of the
materials by oral fungi presents a problem regarding
useful service life, no effects of such colonization on
the mucosal condition of the patients were observed.
The lack of such a relation has been similarly
reported in two published studies4,7). This lack of
mucosal response to fungal colonization could be
explained by the fact that the patients chosen for
our study had no acute problems or no indications
of denture stomatitis; they were generally healthy at
the beginning of the study22). Moreover, most of the
dentures followed in our study were lower dentures,
and the inflammatory changes related to denture
stomatitis were reported to occur rarely under the
lower dentures23).
　　In the present study, fungal colonization was
assessed by visual inspection of the dentures. For
colonized micro-organisms to be visible, they would
have formed a plaque of significant size. Colonization
of the soft liner surface begins with the initial
adhesion of the micro-organisms24). For forming
plaques or biofilms by cell division and agglutination,
surface roughness may be an important contributing
factor25-27). This was partly confirmed in our study,
where visible colonization increased with changes
in surface detail (Tables 6 and 7). Changes in
surface detail resulted in a very rough surface with
many small cracks in the material, which thus
provided a larger surface area and a more protected
environment for colonization.
　　The number of failures recorded in this study
suggested that fungal colonization of the materials,
probably a result of roughened soft liner surface, was
the main reason for replacement (Fig, 2). However,
this was not a general finding and was probably
related to the patient’s oral conditions, which in this
case included diet, saliva secretion, saliva quality,
and efficiency of the cleaning procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the confines of this clinical study, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. Among the chairside materials tested, MLS
showed comparable performance to the
compression-molded and heat-cured MLP,
followed by SLC and GCS. The easier/simpler
application procedure may thus render this
material as an alternative.
2. After one year of clinical service, adhesion
 DMJ 2008; 27(3): 440－447
failure was observed only marginally and
no relines required replacement because of
adhesion problem.
3. After one year, SLC and GCS showed fungal
colonization sooner and more extensively than
the other materials.
4. Reducing fungal colonization on the surface
and improving mechanical strength may
further improve the clinical performance of
soft liners.
5. For all the investigated liners, the results were
good or excellent for majority of the patients
after six months of clinical use.
6. For early detection of fungal colonisation,
every patient with a relined denture should be
called back after three months of use.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to
Professor Leiv Sandvik for statistical advice. We
also thank Professor Dag Ørstavik and Professor
Timo Närhi for helpful discussions and valuable
suggestions during the preparation of the manuscript.
The materials were in part supplied by the
manufacturers, and this was also much appreciated.
REFERENCES
1) Mack PJ. Denture soft lining materials: clinical
indications. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 454-458.
2) Attard NJ, David LA, Zarb GA. Immediate loading
of implants with mandibular overdentures: One-
year clinical results of a prospective study. Int J
Prosthodont 2005;18: 463-470.
3) Wright PS. Soft lining materials: their status and
prospects. J Dent 1976; 4: 247-256.
4) Wright PS. The success and failure of denture
soft-lining materials in clinical use. J Dent 1984;
12: 319-327.
5) Wright PS. Observations on long-term use of a
soft-lining material for mandibular complete
dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 385-392.
6) Schmidt WF, Jr., Smith DE. A six-year retrospective
study of Molloplast-B-lined dentures. Part I: Patient
response. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 308-313.
7) Schmidt WF, Jr., Smith DE. A six-year retrospective
study of Molloplast-B-lined dentures. Part II: Liner
serviceability. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50: 459-465.
8) Jepson NJ, McCabe JF, Storer R. The clinical
serviceability of two permanent denture soft linings.
Br Dent J 1994; 177: 11-16.
9) Braden M, Wright PS, Parker S. Soft lining
materials ― a review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor
Dent 1995; 3: 163-174.
10) Braden M. Polymeric Dental Materials, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp.125-137.
11) Garcia LT, Jones JD. Soft liners. Dent Clin North
447
Am 2004; 48: 709-720.
12) McCabe JF. A polyvinylsiloxane denture soft lining
material. J Dent 1998; 26: 521-526.
13) Nikawa H, Jin C, Hamada T, Makihira S, Kumagai
H, Murata H. Interactions between thermal cycled
resilient denture lining materials, salivary and
serum pellicles and Candida albicans in vitro. Part
II. Effects on fungal colonization. J Oral Rehabil
2000; 27: 124-130.
14) Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N.
Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission
Project 2-955. Int Dent J 2001;51: 117-158.
15) Shim JS, Watts DC. An examination of the stress
distribution in a soft-lined acrylic resin mandibular
complete denture by finite element analysis. Int J
Prosthodont 2000; 13: 19-24.
16) Jordan DR, Nerad JA. An acute inflammatory
reaction to silicone stents. Ophthal Plast Reconstr
Surg 1987; 3: 147-150.
17) Davenport JC. An adverse reaction to a silicone
rubber soft lining material. Report of a case. Br
Dent J 1970; 128: 545-546.
18) Oguz S, Mutluay MM, Dogan OM, Bek B. Effect of
thermocycling on tensile strength and tear resistance
of four soft denture liners. Dent Mater J 2007; 26:
296-302.
19) Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE. Evaluation of bond
strength of soft relining materials to denture base
polymers. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1373-1381.
20) Kutay O, Bilgin T, Sakar O, Beyli M. Tensile bond
strength of a soft lining with acrylic denture base
resins. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1994; 2: 123-
126.
21) McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Kamohara H. Adhesive
bond strength and compliance for denture soft lining
materials. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 1347-1352.
22) Okita N, Orstavik D, Orstavik J, Ostby K. In vivo
and in vitro studies on soft denture materials:
microbial adhesion and tests for antibacterial
activity. Dent Mater 1991; 7: 155-160.
23) Wright PS, Clark P, Hardie JM. The prevalence and
significance of yeasts in persons wearing complete
dentures with soft-lining materials. J Dent Res
1985; 64: 122-125.
24) Radford DR, Challacombe SJ, Walter JD. Denture
plaque and adherence of Candida albicans to
denture-base materials in vivo and in vitro. Crit
Rev Oral Biol Med 1999; 10: 99-116.
25) Quirynen M. The clinical meaning of the surface
roughness and the surface free energy of intra-oral
hard substrata on the microbiology of the supra- and
subgingival plaque: results of in vitro and in vivo
experiments. J Dent 1994; 22: 13-16.
26) Radford DR, Sweet SP, Challacombe SJ, Walter
JD. Adherence of Candida albicans to denture-base
materials with different surface finishes. J Dent
1998; 26: 577-583.
27) Verran J, Maryan CJ. Retention of Candida
albicans on acrylic resin and silicone of different
surface topography. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 535-
539.