Submitted: 30 Apr 2007
Accepted: 25 Feb 2013
ePublished: 25 Feb 2013
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2006;18(1): 105-111.
  Abstract View: 22

Research

Comparison of water absorption and solubility of Acropars and Viscogel tissue conditioners

Fariba Golbidi*, Bahar Behdadmehr
*Corresponding Author: Email: fgolbidi@yahoo.com

Abstract

Comparison of water absorption and solubility of Acropars and Viscogel tissue conditioners

Dr. F. Golbidi*- Dr. B. Behdadmehr**

*- Assistant Professor of Prosthodontics Dept.-Faculty of Dentistry – Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

** - Dentist.

 Background and Aim: Soft denture lining materials have been used in dentistry for almost a century. The aim of this study was to measure water absorption and solubility of Acrosoft tissue conditioner samples and compare them with those of Viscogel samples.

Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, stainless steel molds were prepared in disk shape of 0.5±0.05 mm thickness and 50±7 mm diameter. Fifteen specimens were prepared from each material. At first, all of them were weighed and place into distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours. Then they were removed and reweighed. These procedures were also repeated at 4 and 7 days. After 7 days, specimens were dried in a desicator at 37 C, removed and finally reweighed. Data were subjected to student T – test.

Results: The mean values of water absorption at 24 h, 4 and 7 days were 1.4394±0.0146, 1.384±0.0078 and 1.3595±0.0027 percent for Viscogel gel and 1.2423±0.0260, 1.5520±0.0236 and 2.0537±0.0273 percent for Acropars. Statistical analysis showed significant differences in the mean water absorption at different time periods (P<0.001). Moreover, Acrosoft showed higher solubility (1.7452±0.0234 percent) than Viscogel (1.6850±0.0227 percent). This difference was also statistically significant (P<.0.001).

Conclusion: Water absorption and solubility of Acrosoft samples were significantly higher than those of Viscogel samples.

Key words: Water absorption – Solubility – Tissue conditioner – Soft liner.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 23

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.