World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Tensile Bond Strength of Indigenously Developed Hydrogel Denture Adhesive: An In Vitro Study

Reshma K Raveendran, Tony Chakkiath, Venkitachalam Ramanarayanan, Sreeprabha G Mohan

Keywords : Denture adhesives, Hydrogel denture adhesive, Tensile bond strength

Citation Information : Raveendran RK, Chakkiath T, Ramanarayanan V, Mohan SG. Evaluation of Tensile Bond Strength of Indigenously Developed Hydrogel Denture Adhesive: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (2):170-175.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2197

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of an indigenously developed hydrogel denture adhesive with that of three commercially available denture adhesives under dry and wet conditions. Materials and methods: The test group consisted of an indigenously prepared hydrogel-based denture adhesive composed of chitosan-pectin (CSP) dopamine. The comparator group consisted of three commercially available denture adhesives (Fixon, Denofit, and Effergrip). The outcome measurement was TBS of the denture adhesives. A total of 56 samples were tested for the study and divided into four groups (hydrogel, Fixon, Denofit, and Effergrip) of 14 each. Each group was further divided into two groups (I and II) of seven samples each. Group I was tested under normal atmospheric conditions and group II was tested under artificial saliva. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 for Windows. Student's paired t-test, repeated measures design analysis of variance (ANOVA) among each group, and two-factor design ANOVA (adhesive by saliva treatment) were performed to determine the significance among mean values and different treatments. Results: For hydrogels, it was observed that there was a statistically significant difference with tensile strength being lower in artificial saliva. Fixon did not show a statistically significant change between the two conditions at any time point. At time points 6, 12, and 24 hours, the difference in tensile strength was statistically significant for all materials except Fixon under artificial saliva. Conclusion: The TBS was significantly greater in indigenously made hydrogel for 5 minutes, 3, and 6 hours both in normal atmospheric conditions and samples immersed in saliva. But after 24 hours, it showed the least strength. For all samples, TBS was found to be decreasing as the time interval increased. After 12 and 24 hours, Effergrip showed the highest TBS. The least strength was for Denofit. Clinical significance: A new hydrogel-based denture adhesive was tested against three commercially available denture adhesives, and it showed better initial bond strength under normal and wet conditions.

PDF Share
  1. Smita M, Ramandeep D, Mukund K. A review of denture adhesives used in the dental profession. Ann Essences Dent 2010;2(3):129–133. DOI: 10.5368/aedj.2010.2.3.129-133.pdf
  2. Madsen F, Eberth K, Smart JD. Rheological assessment of the nature of interactions between mucoadhesive polymers and a homogenized mucous gel. Biomaterials 1998;19(11–12):1083–1092. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00037-4
  3. Rendell JK, Gay T, Grasso JE, et al. The effect of denture adhesive on mandibular movement during chewing. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131(7):981–986. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0316
  4. Grasso JE. Denture adhesives: changing attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(1):90–96. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0316
  5. Nations SP, Boyer PJ, Love LA, et al. Denture cream: an unusual source of excess zinc, leading to hypocupremia and neurologic disease. Neurology 2008;71(9):639–643. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000312375.79881.94
  6. Chowdhry P, Phukela SS, Patil R, et al. A study to evaluate the retentive ability of different denture adhesive materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10(3):176–181. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-010-0039-4
  7. Gill SK, Roohpour N, Topham PD, et al. Tunable denture adhesives using biomimetic principles for enhanced tissue adhesion in moist environments. Acta Biomater 2017;63:326–335. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.09.004
  8. Waite JH. Mussel adhesion–essential footwork. J Exp Biol 2017;220(4):517–530. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.134056
  9. Ahamed EM. Hydrogel: preparation, characterization, and applications: a review. J Adv Res 2015;6(2):105–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2013.07.006
  10. Husain S, Al-Samadani KH, Najeeb S, et al. Chitosan biomaterials for current and potential dental applications. Materials 2017;10(6):602. DOI: 10.3390/ma10060602
  11. Ryu JH, Lee Y, Kong WH, et al. Catechol-functionalized chitosan/pluronic hydrogels for tissue adhesives and hemostatic materials. Biomacromolecules 2011;12(7):2653–2659. DOI: 10.1021/bm200464x
  12. Muzzarelli RAA, Muzzarelli C. Chitin and chitosan hydrogels. In: Handbook of Hydrocolloids [Internet]. Elsevier; 2009 [cited 2019 Dec 9]. p. 849–888.
  13. International Civil Aviation Organization. Manual of the ICAO Standard Atmosphere, Doc 7488-CD, Third Edition, 1993. ISBN 92-9194-004-6.
  14. Srinivasan S, Kumar PTS, Nair SV, et al. Antibacterial and bioactive and chitin hydrogel/nanobioactive glass ceramic/nano silver composite scaffolds for periodontal regeneration. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2013;9(11):1803–1816. DOI: 10.1166/jbn.2013.1658
  15. Toh WS, Loh XJ. Advances in hydrogel delivery systems for tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2014;45:690–697. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.04.026
  16. Jing X, Mi H-Y, Napiwocki BN, et al. Mussel-inspired electroactive chitosan/graphene oxide composite hydrogel with rapid self-healing and recovery behavior for tissue engineering. Carbon 2017;125: 557–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2017.09.071
  17. Rahimnejad M, Zhong W. Mussel-inspired hydrogel tissue adhesives for wound closure. RSC Adv 2017;7(75):47380–47396. DOI: 10.1039/C7RA06743G
  18. Guaresti O, García–Astrain C, Palomares T, et al. Synthesis and characterization of a biocompatible chitosan–based hydrogel cross–linked via ‘click’ chemistry for controlled drug release. Int J Biol Macromol 2017;102:1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.04.003
  19. Zhao K, Cheng X-R, Chao Y-L, et al. Laboratory evaluation of a new denture adhesive. Dent Mater 2004;20(5):419–424. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2002.12.001
  20. Chew CL, Boone ME, Swartz ML, et al. Denture adhesives: their effects on denture retention and stability. J Dent 1985;13(2):152–159. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(85)90089-2
  21. Chew CL. Retention of denture adhesives, an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17(5):425–434. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb01414.x
  22. Panagiotouni E, Pissiotis A, Kapari D, et al. Retentive ability of various denture adhesive materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73(6):578–585. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80120-9
  23. Kore DR, Kattadiyil MT, Hall DB, et al. In vitro comparison of the tensile bond strength of denture adhesives on denture bases. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110(6):488–493. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.014
  24. Caló E, Khutoryanskiy VV. Biomedical applications of hydrogels: a review of patents and commercial products. Eur Polym J 2015;65: 252–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.11.024
  25. Zhang F, An Y, Roohpour N, et al. Hydration dependent mechanical performance of denture adhesive hydrogels. Dent Mater 2018;34(10):1440–1448. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.06.015
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.