Estimation of differences and reapplication effect of peel bond strength between silicone-based and water-based adhesives.

Rangeela Rajasekaran, Naveen Gopi Chander, Jetty Ramesh Reddy, Muthukumar Balasubramanium

Journal: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2024;131(6):1276-1279

PMID: 35764450

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Retention is essential for maxillofacial prosthesis. Adhesives are commonly used for retention because of their simplicity, availability, and cost-effectiveness. Studies that have estimated the differences in bond strength between the types of adhesives and the impact of reapplication are sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this observational clinical study was to estimate the peel bond strength and reapplication effects of water-based and silicone-based adhesives at 0, 24, and 48 hours.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 46 participants were enrolled, with 23 participants in each adhesive test group-water-based and silicone-based adhesive. Silicone elastomeric strips were attached to the ventral aspect of the participants' forearm 5 cm away from the radial styloid prominence. The strength of each adhesive group was tested at 0 hours, and its reapplication effects were evaluated at 24 and 48 hours. The peel bond strength was estimated by using a universal testing machine, and the data were recorded in N/m and statistically analyzed by the independent Student t test and Spearman rho correlation coefficient tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean ±standard deviation of peel bond strength at 0 hours for silicone-based adhesive (111.5 ±2.5 N/m) was higher than that for water-based adhesive (99.9 ±3.9 N/m) (P<.001). On reapplication, the silicone-based adhesive had a higher peel bond strength (113.5 ±2.8 N/m) than the water-based adhesive (105.2 ±3.0 N/m) (P<.001). The results were statistically significant between the 2 groups at different time intervals (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean peel bond strength of the silicone-based adhesive was higher than that of the water-based adhesive. The reapplication of adhesives improved the bond strength in both the groups.

Copyright © 2022 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Address: Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.; Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. Electronic address: [email protected].; Reader, Department of Prosthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.; Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Prosthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.