A New Method for Evaluating the Retentive Efficacy of Different Denture Adhesives
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new method for measuring the retention values of different denture adhesives. Methods: The adhesive strength values of three different commercial denture adhesives (Corega powder, Corega adhesive tape and Ultra Corega cream) were evaluated using three different moisturizing agents (distilled water, artificial saliva and natural saliva). The adhesive test was performed on a universal testing machine, after applying the adhesive products to acrylic resin specimens, under two different test conditions (wetting or dipping). Tensile bond strength values in MPa were obtained for each denture adhesive presentation and test condition. Viscosity of the denture adhesives mixed with the different moisturizing agents was determined using a rotary rheometer. Maximum viscosity values were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test. Tensile bond strength data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and the Tukey’s test. Pooled data of each denture adhesive presentations for all test conditions was also carried out. Correlation between viscosity and pooled tensile strength values was analyzed through linear regression analysis. A significance level of α=0.05 was set for all analyses. Results: Results showed that statistically higher adhesion strength was obtained with tape and cream adhesives when using natural saliva as moisturizing agents (p<0.05). The adhesive strength values obtained with the dipping method were similar to those obtained with the conventional wetting method. The denture retention strength was influenced by both the denture adhesive type and moisturizing agent used. Conclusion: The dipping method showed to be a reliable test capable to simulate the oral conditions and should be better explored in further studies.
2020? J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jan;87(1):5-8.
2. Nordenram G, Davidson T, Gynther G, Helgesson G, Hultin M, Jemt T, et al. Qualitative studies
of patients’ perceptions of loss of teeth, the edentulous state and prosthetic rehabilitation:
A systematic review with meta-synthesis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):937-51.
3. Peltzer K, Hewlett S, Yawson AE, Moynihan P, Preet R, Wu F, et al. Prevalence of loss of all
teeth (Edentulism) and associated factors in older adults in China, Ghana, India, Mexico,
Russia and South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Oct 30;11(11):11308-24.
4. Tyrovolas S, Koyanagi A, Panagiotakos DB, Haro JM, Kassebaum NJ, Chrepa V, et al. Population
prevalence of edentulism and its association with depression and self-rated health. Sci Rep. Sci Rep.
2016 Nov 17;6:37083. doi: 10.1038/srep37083.
5. Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral
Rehabil. 2010 Feb;37(2):143-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02039.x.
6. Psillakis JJ, Wright RF, Grbic JT, Lamster IB. In practice evaluation of a denture adhesive using a
gnathometer. J Prosthodont. 2004 Dec;13(4):244-50.
7. Chowdhry P, Phukela SS, Patil R, Yadav H, Singh S. A Study to Evaluate the Retentive Ability
of Different Denture Adhesive Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010
Sep;10(3):176-81. doi: 10.1007/s13191-010-0039-4.
8. Folse GJ. Denture adhesives: when, why, and how. Dent Today. 2004 Dec;23(12):70-1.
9. Kalra P, Nadiger R, Shah FK. An investigation into the effect of denture adhesives on incisal bite force
of complete denture wearers using pressure transducers - a clinical study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012
May;4(2):97-102. doi: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.2.97.
10. Sato Y, Kaiba Y, Hayakawa I. Evaluation of denture retention and ease of removal from oral mucosa
on a new gel-type denture adhesive. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008 Apr;52(2):175-82.
11. de Oliveira da Rosa WL, de Oliveira SGD, Rosa CH, da Silva AF, Lund RG, Piva E. Current
trends and future perspectives in the development of denture adhesives: an overview based
on technological monitoring process and systematic review. J Biomed Sci. 2015;4(1):1–7.
12. Coates AJ. Usage of denture adhesives. J Dent. 2000 Feb;28(2):137-40.
13. Chew CL. Retention of denture adhesives-an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil. 1990 Sep;17(5):425-34.
14. Ghani F, Picton DC, Likeman PR. Some factors affecting retention forces with the use of denture
fixatives in vivo. Br Dent J. 1991 Jul;171(1):15-21.
15. An Y, Li D, Roohpour N, Gautrot JE, Barber AH. Failure mechanisms in denture adhesives. Dent Mater.
2016 May;32(5):615-23. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.01.007.
16. Cartagena AF, Esmerino LA, Polak-Junior R, Olivieri Parreiras S, Domingos Michel M, Farago PV, et al.
New denture adhesive containing miconazole nitrate polymeric microparticles: Antifungal, adhesive
force and toxicity properties. Dent Mater. 2017 Feb;33(2):e53-e61. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.039.
17. Mañes JF, Selva EJ, De-Barutell A, Bouazza K. Comparison of the retention strengths of three
complete denture adhesives: An in vivo study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 Jan;16(1):e132–6.
18. Polyzois G, Lagouvardos P, Frangou M, Stefaniotis T. Efficacy of denture adhesives in maxillary
dentures using gnathodynamometry: a comparative study. Odontology. 2011 Jul;99(2):155-61.
19. Johnson RW. Handbook of Fluid Dynamics. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.
20. Han JM, Hong G, Dilinuer M, Lin H, Zheng G, Wang XZ, et al. The adhesive strength
and initial viscosity of denture adhesives. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014 Nov;72(8):839-45.
21. Han JM, Hong G, Hayashida K, Maeda T, Murata H, Sasaki K. Influence of composition on the
adhesive strength and initial viscosity of denture adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(1):98-103.
22. Kano H, Kurogi T, Shimizu T, Nishimura M, Murata H. Viscosity and adhesion strength of cream-type
denture adhesives and mouth moisturizers. Dent Mater J. 2012;31(6):960-8.
23. Gill SK, Roohpour N, An Y, Gautrot JE, Topham PD, Tighe BJ. Hydrophobic and hydrophilic effects on
water structuring and adhesion in denture adhesives. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2018 May;106(5):1355-62.
24. Zhang F, An Y, Roohpour N, Barber AH, Gautrot JE. Hydration dependent mechanical performance of
denture adhesive hydrogels. Dent Mater. 2018 Oct;34(10):1440-8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.06.015.
25. Preetha A, Banerjee R. Comparison of artificial saliva substitutes. Trends Biomater Artif Organs.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY. The online journal is free and open access.