Effect of different mucosal and acrylic resin surface treatments in a denture retention model for patients with radiotherapy-induced xerostomia.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of oral moisturizing agents, denture adhesives, and surface treatments on the retention of an acrylic resin test base dislodged from the maxillary alveolar ridges of xerostomic radiotherapy patients. Acrylic resin test bases prepared for 10 edentulous xerostomia patients were subjected to 8 surface treatment methods: method 1 = untreated dry surface; method 2 = use of Biotène oral moisturizer; method 3 = use of Protefix denture adhesive; method 4 = combination of Biotène and Protefix; method 5 = sandblasting of test bases; method 6 = use of Biotène on sandblasted surface; method 7 = use of Protefix on sandblasted surface; method 8 = combination of Protefix and Biotène on sandblasted surface. After each treatment, a tensile testing apparatus was used to dislodge the inserted test bases, and force values (N) were recorded. A significant difference in retentive force was observed between the 4 Protefix groups and those that did not use denture adhesive (P < .001). There were no differences among the 4 combinations of denture adhesive treatments (P > .05). Sandblasting the denture surfaces did not increase retentive forces alone or in combination with any other treatments. Biotène oral moisturizing agent was used in 4 treatment methods, but only had a significant effect on increasing retentive force when used with a nonsandblasted surface (P < .05). Biotène had no effect on retentive force compared to a nonsandblasted surface without moisturizer or when it was used in combination with any other methods. Protefix denture adhesive offered the greatest improvement in retentive force. Sandblasting the intaglio surface did not improve retentive force. Biotène was reported to improve patient comfort but had minimal effect on retentive force; however, Biotène can be assumed to be a more advantageous method of increasing retention compared to sandblasting (P < .05).
Sipahi
Cumhur
C
Department of Prosthodontics, Center of Dental Sciences, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, 06018 Etlik, Ankara, Turkey. cumhursipahi@yahoo.com
Beyzadeoglu
Murat
M
Demirtas
Serdar
S
Ozen
Julide
J
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D000269:Adhesives / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D045662:Dental Etching; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003819:Denture Bases; D003781:Denture Retention; D003827:Denture, Complete, Upper; D004338:Drug Combinations; D005949:Glucose Oxidase / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D007784:Lactoperoxidase / Q000627:therapeutic use; D009061:Mouth Mucosa / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000528:radiation effects; D009067:Mouthwashes / Q000627:therapeutic use; D009113:Muramidase / Q000627:therapeutic use; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000009:adverse effects*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength; D014987:Xerostomia / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000628:therapy
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D000269:Adhesives; C111669:Biotene; D003764:Dental Materials; D004338:Drug Combinations; D009067:Mouthwashes; D005949:Glucose Oxidase; D007784:Lactoperoxidase; D009113:Muramidase; D000537:Aluminum Oxide