d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Evaluation of bond strength of soft relining materials to

denture base polymers
Mustafa Murat Mutluay a,b , I. Eystein Ruyter a,
a
b

NIOM, Nordic Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway

University of Oslo, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Objectives. To evaluate the initial bonding properties of recently and previously introduced

Received 14 July 2006

soft relining materials to denture base polymers with different polymerization techniques

Accepted 16 November 2006

and different water content.

Methods. The initial tensile bond strength of 10 soft liners (Mollosil Plus, Dentusil, U gel
Soft, GC Reline Soft, Silagum Comfort, Vertex Soft, Astron Soft, Molloplast B, Flexacryl Soft,

Keywords:

Triad Resiline) to three denture base polymers (Paladon 65, Palapress Vario, Ivocap Plus) were

Adhesion

assessed with a modied method. Paladon 65 specimens immersed in water for 3 months

Chairside

were also used to test the effect of water content of denture base polymer on bond strength

Dental materials

results. After testing, a visual examination of the fracture surfaces and a SEM investigation

Relining

of the interface structure were performed. Tensile strength of each soft liner material was

Silicone

also tested. Data were analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05).

Tensile failure

Results. Signicant differences were found among tensile bond strength results (P < 0.05).
Vinyl poly(organosiloxane) soft liners (Mollosil Plus, Dentusil, U gel Soft, GC Reline Soft,
Silagum Comfort) and a plasticized PMMA soft liner (Vertex Soft) gave statistically similar
bond strength results for different denture base polymers (P > 0.05). For the other materials
used (Astron Soft, Molloplast B, Flexacryl Soft, Triad Resiline), different denture base polymers caused signicantly different results (P < 0.05). Poly(organosiloxane) based materials
gave slightly higher bond strength results with water immersed specimens than with the
dry specimens.
Signicance. A wide variety of newly formulated soft liners used in this study gave comparable
or better bond strength results compared to Molloplast B.
2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Soft liners which are intended for relining removable dentures

and other oral and maxillofacial prostheses are used to evenly
distribute the forces applied to soft tissues during function.
The tissue contacting surface of prosthesis is covered with
the soft liner and this coated structure is expected to have

a healing effect on the mucosa as well as giving comfort to

the patient [1].
A reliable bond between denture base and soft liner is
required for the denture to function properly. In the dental
literature, the difculty of obtaining a reliable bond between
soft relining materials and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
denture base polymers has often been discussed [220]. Main

Correspondence author at: NIOM, Nordic Institute of Dental Materials, Kirkeveien 71B, P.O. Box 70, NO-1305 Haslum, Norway.
Tel.: +47 67 51 22 00; fax: +47 67 59 15 30.
E-mail address: eystein.ruyter@niom.no (I.E. Ruyter).
0109-5641/$ see front matter 2006 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.014

1374

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

types of soft liners used today include addition and condensation poly(siloxanes) and plasticized acrylic soft liners [13].
To obtain adequate bond strengths, soft liners usually need
special bonding agents that interact with the surface layer
of the denture base polymer and the soft liner. Several different types of bonding agents were used for silicone soft
relining materials. A popular formula used for recent materials contains a polymeric substance dissolved in a solvent.
This substance can either be a reactive molecule, i.e. an
organo-silane which usually enhances bonding with its reactive groups, or molecules like PMMA dissolved in solvents
which work by increasing the wettability of the substrate and
by impregnating the surface layer with the polymeric ingredients [20].
Another frequently used type of bonding agent consists of
a single solvent or multiple solvents. A solvent-based bonding agent enhances bond strength by swelling the surface
and improving wettability of the substrate. Solvents also have
the advantage of cleaning the surface from environmental
pollutants and dissolving and dispersing loose particles covering the surface of PMMA. Some of the solvents are also
capable of displacing water and reaching deeper into the
polymer and thus facilitating the penetration of monomers
[12,20].
The mechanical properties of soft relining materials and
their bonding characteristics have been evaluated by various test methods [24,69,11,12,19,21]. There are three widely
accepted methods for testing adhesion of denture soft liners
to denture base polymers: peel, lap-shear and tensile testing [2]. The usefulness of these methods have been discussed
[24,69,11,12,19]. Testing the soft liners using peel testing is
believed to be the best simulation of the clinical setting for the
failure of soft lining materials. However, the results obtained
from peel tests were reported to be unsatisfactory due to the
higher probability of cohesive failures in the soft materials
[9,12,16,22]. Another point is that the results obtained in a peel
test are inuenced by the compliance of the materials as well
as the thickness [2].
In lap-shear testing, the stresses applied to the specimen
are believed to be concentrated at the edges of the lining material [2]. This may make the interpretation of bond strength
results and failure mechanisms difcult. The shear strength
of the bond is also affected by the deformation rates of the
component materials which make the situation even more
complicated given the differing viscoelastic properties of different relining materials [2].
For testing the adhesion between the soft lining materials
and PMMA denture base polymer, the tensile test method was
preferred. This method was described by American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and data obtained from such
samples were found signicant for testing the effectiveness of
different processing techniques and various adhesive systems
[23].
Testing the adhesion of soft liners to a hard substrate has
some practical difculties which originate mainly from low
tear strengths of the soft materials. Debonding the soft liner
from the hard surface during bond strength testing usually
initiates rupture. Many authors have investigated the fracture
surfaces after testing and reported cohesive failures. In case of
tearing of the soft lining material, the strength of the adhesion

bond is obviously not measured, but it appears to be greater

than the strength of the rubber itself [23].
Materials with new chemical compositions are used today
but the properties of these materials remain elusive. An
assessment of the bonding mechanisms between soft polymer
materials and rigid denture base polymer surfaces is required.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the adhesion of a
range of several soft relining materials to PMMA denture base
polymers with different water content using a modied ASTM
[23] method for evaluating tensile strength of adhesion. Tensile strength of the soft relining materials was also measured
to evaluate the relationship between tensile strength and tensile bond strength of liners. Fracture surfaces were examined
to assess the failure mechanisms involved.
A previously well-studied material Molloplast B [29,13,16,
18,21,24] was also chosen as a control. SEM was used to examine the structure of the interface after the application of soft
liners.

2.

Materials and methods

The manufacturers information, identication codes and recommended processing methods of the materials used in this
study are presented in Table 1.
A standard test method for evaluating tensile strength
of adhesion [23] was used with some modications with
regard to specimen production. The denture base polymer
was cured around stainless steel screws (Fig. 1A) for easy
manipulation during surface standardization, soft liner application and testing [25]. An acrylic block with 16 cylindrical
recesses was used (Fig. 1A, simplied by using one recess for
demonstration purposes) and a stainless steel screws head
was inserted into every recess leaving the rest of the screw
outside and xed using modelling wax (Fig. 1A). After moulding the pattern, wax was boiled out and the acrylic block
was removed from the mold. The denture base polymer was
cured in the space obtained around the steel screw heads
(Fig. 1A). After polymerization of the denture base polymer,
the surface of the specimen to which soft liner was to be
applied was ground wet with 220, 500, 1200 grit (FEPA) (particle size 68, 30, and 14 m, respectively) SiC abrasive papers
(Struers A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), using a Planapol (Struers
A/S) grinding machine. This procedure was carried out in
order to obtain surfaces perpendicular to the long axis of the
specimen.
The PMMA specimens and the axial alignment jig are
shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1AD. A cylindrical, translucent poly(ethylene) tube of 3 mm height and 11 mm diameter
was used as a mould for the soft relining material (Fig. 1A).
The polyethylene collar used in this study has previously been
used to control the volume and bonding area of the soft liner
and was reported to cause no interference with bond testing
[12].
The soft relining materials were cured between the two
denture polymer specimens (Fig. 1C). Two tapped brass bars
held the specimens in the correct position. A constant
downward pressure was applied to the specimens during
polymerization for a better simulation of a chairside reline
procedure in which the patient bites on the material (Fig. 1C).

1375

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

Table 1 Materials used for the study

Brand names (code)

Material type

Manufacturer

Processing method

Denture base
polymer Colour:
pink 1
Denture base
polymer Colour:
clear 7

Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany

Pourable polymer system; 55 C at

2 kg/cm2 pressure/15 min

Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany

Astron LC Soft (ASL)

Mollosil plus (MLS)
Mollosil plus Primer (MLSB)

Denture base
polymer Colour: S
Soft liner
Soft liner
Primer

Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,

Lichtenstein
Astron Dental, Lake Zurich, IL
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany
Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany

Compression-mold technique; heat

processed at 23 C to 70 C/30 min,
70 C/30 min, 70 C to boiling/20 min,
boiling water/30 min
Heat-cured injection- molded

Dentusil (DNT)
Dentusil Adhesive (DNTB)

Soft liner
Adhesive

Harry J. Bosworth Co, Skokie, IL

Harry J. Bosworth Co, Skokie, IL

Molloplast B (MLP)
Primo adhesive (MLPB)

Soft liner
Adhesive

Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany

Detax GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany

Flexacry Soft (FLS)

Acrylic primer (FLSB)

Soft liner
Primer

Lang Dental, Wheeling, IL

Lang Dental, Wheeling, IL

Triad Resiline (TRS)

Soft liner

VLC Bonding agent (TRSB)

Bonding agent

Ugel Soft (UFS)

Ugel Soft Adhesive (UFSB)

Soft liner
Adhesive

Dentsply International Inc., York,

PA
Dentsply International Inc., York,
PA
VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany
VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany

GC Reline Soft (GCS)

GC Reline Primer R (GCSB)

Soft liner
Primer

GC Co, Tokyo, Japan

GC Co, Tokyo, Japan

Silagum Comfort (SLC)

Silagum Comfort Primer (SLCB)

Soft liner
Primer

DMG, Hamburg, Germany

DMG, Hamburg, Germany

Vertex Soft (VRS)

Soft liner

Vertex Dental, Zeist, The

Netherlands

Palapress Vario (PPV)

Paladon 65 (P65)

Ivocap Plus (IVP)

Light activation
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Mollosil plus. Apply
and let solvent dry for 1 min
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Dentusil. Apply and
air-dry for 3060 s
Heat-cure
Recommended for Molloplast B. Apply
and let dry for 6090 min
Autopolymerizing + air pressure unit
Recommended for Flexacryl soft. Apply
and allow to dry
Light-cured
Recommended for TRS. Bench set for
2 min, cure in Triad curing unit for 2 min
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Ugel soft. Apply to
the surface and let aerate for 1 min
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for GC Reline soft. Apply
to the surface and gently dry with air
Autopolymerizing
Recommended for Silagum AM Comfort.
Apply and let solvent dry for 1 min
Heat-cure

Fig. 1 Illustration showing (A) A stainless steel screws head inserted into the recess of the acrylic block leaving the rest of
the screw outside and xed using modelling wax. After moulding the pattern, wax was boiled out and the acrylic block was
removed from the mold. The denture base polymer was cured in the space obtained around the steel screw heads. (B) The
alignment jig and testing assembly before the application of soft liner. (C) Force applied to the specimen during
polymerization. (D) Testing of specimen under tension.

1376

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

It was estimated that the area of tissue in contact with an

upper denture is 2500 mm2 and an estimated maximum bite
force of 156 N [26] was used to calculate the pressure between
the soft liner and the PMMA denture base (an area of 95 mm2
for the current test set-up). For the contact area in the current
set-up, a value of 6 N was calculated to represent the force for
an upper denture and this force was applied vertically to the
assembled specimens during polymerization (Fig. 1C).
The specimens prepared using heat-cured soft liners
(Table 1) were cured in gypsum moulds using boiling water
(100 C).
For testing of the initial bond strength to dry substrate,
ten PMMA blocks (Fig. 1A) were prepared for each group and
ve test samples were made by assembling two PMMA blocks
together with the soft liner layer in between. A total number
300 dry PMMA blocks were used to make 150 test specimens
which represent 30 PMMAsoft liner combinations.
As a simulation of the wet environment, specimens of P65
denture base material were immersed in distilled water for 3
months at 37 1 C. These wet specimens were used as substrates after wiping the surface with dry tissue paper. For
testing of the initial bond strength to wet substrate, ve relining materials representing different material types (UFS, GCS,
SLC, MLP, VRS) were chosen. A total number of 50 wet P65
blocks were used to make 25 test specimens.
For tensile testing of the bond strength specimens, the grips
of the test machine (model 1122; Instron Corp., High Wycombe,
UK) held the brass rods (Fig. 1D). Specimen diameters were
measured (Digimatic micrometer; Mitutoyo Corp., Tokyo,
Japan, Uncertainty 0.002 mm to calibration die, Certicate
of calibration 2004, Teknologisk Institutt, NA, CAL 00199/328)
before testing. The cross-head speed was 24 mm/min [23] and
the specimens were subjected to tension under dry conditions at (23 1) C and (50 5)% relative humidity until failure
occurred. The tensile strength of adhesion was calculated by
dividing maximum force (N) by the initial area of bond surface
(mm2 ).
The locus of failure was visually determined for every specimen after testing. Four of ve possible types of failure were
identied:
1. Pure interfacial (adhesive) failure (A).
2. Interfacial failure with thin residue on denture base polymer (B).
3. Interfacial failure mixed with bulk failure (C).
4. Complete bulk (cohesive) failure of relining material (D).
5. Complete bulk (cohesive) failure in denture base polymer
was not observed.
All the soft relining materials were also tested to evaluate
the tensile strength. A gypsum mold was made by using a polytetrauoroethylene (PTFE) dumbbell pattern with a diameter
of 2.5 mm along the thin section. Six specimens were used
for each soft liner material. The samples were tested under
tension using the same cross-head speed and laboratory conditions as described above.
The results were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using statistical software (SPSS Version 11.0;
SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The Tukey honestly signicant difference (HSD) post hoc comparison was applied to the

denture base polymer/chairside relining polymer combinations ( = 0.05).

The methacrylate-based ingredients of the bonding agents
used in this study were analyzed by reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). An aliquot of 2 ml
of the bonding agent was mixed with acetone to dissolve the
polymeric ingredients and then the mixture was centrifuged
with ethanol. The precipitate was dried and analyzed after
depolymerization [27].
For the interface study, the PMMA blocks were ground wet
to obtain a smooth surface with 500, 1200, and 4000 grit (FEPA
P) (particle size 30, 14, and 5 m, respectively) SiC abrasive
papers (Struers) and nally polished with a mixture of distilled
water and Al2 O3 (particle size 1, 0.3, and 0.05 m) on discs with
DP-Dur (Struers) (for 1 m) and DP-Nap (Struers) (for 0.3 and
0.05 m) polishing clothes. The method described by Aydin et
al. [4] was used for preparing the specimens. The specimens
were frozen in liquid nitrogen and fractured by putting a knife
perpendicular to the adhered surface and applying an impact
with a hammer.
After being mounted on aluminum stubs, the specimens
were sputtered with a 20 nm Au-Pd layer in a sputter coater
device (Sputter Coater SCD 050, Balzers, Liechtenstein). Then,
the specimens were examined at 5 kV in a Philips 515 scanning
electron microscope (Philips Electron Optics, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands).

3.

Results

The chemical components of the materials according to

manufacturers information are given in Table 2. Tensile
strength, tensile bond strength and standard deviations (S.D.)
of material combinations with multiple pairwise comparisons for bond strength results using Tukeys HSD is given in
Table 3.
The tensile bond strength results ranged from
0.53(0.03) MPa (PPV-ASL) to 4.59(1.14) MPa (PPV-VRS). The
two-way ANOVA results show signicant differences between
tensile bond strength values of soft relining materials to
PMMA denture base polymers (P < 0.05) resulting in three
overlapping groups formed by the statistically similar materials except VRS, which is different giving the highest results
versus the three denture base polymers (Table 3).
The signicant interaction between soft liner and denture base polymer (P < 0.05) indicates that bond strength
results were differently affected by the type of denture base
polymer used. For the soft liners ASL, MLP, FLS, and TRS
different denture base polymer substrates gave signicantly
different results (P < 0.05) (Table 3). However, bond strength
results when bonded to the different denture base polymers
were statistically similar (P > 0.05) for the vinyl-containing
poly(organosiloxane) based soft liners (MLS, DNT, UFS, GCS,
SLC) and a plasticized acrylic VRS.
The tensile strength results of soft liners ranged from
1.12(0.27) MPa (ASL) to 4.46(0.68) MPa (PPV-VRS) and ANOVA
results show four overlapping groups formed by the statistically similar materials except VRS, which gave the highest
result of all the soft liners (Table 3). When compared with
the tensile bond strength results, tensile strength results were

1377

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

Table 2 Chemical ingredients of the materials according to manufacturers information

Material
GCS
MLP

Components

Primer

UFS

Silicon dioxide, vinyl dimethyl polysiloxane, hydrogen polysiloxane

Condensation silicone material, PMMA,
-methacryloyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane
A-silicone

SLC

Vinylsilicone, hydrogen silicone, aerosil, additives

MLS

Polydimethylsiloxane with functional groups, ller, pigments,

platinum catalyst
n-Butyl methacrylate, trimethylpropan-trimethacrylate, dibutyl
phthalate
Mixture of vinyl polysiloxane, polysiloxanes and silica
Urethane acrylate
MMA, EGDMA, acetyl tributylcitrate (plasticizer), PMMA
Butyl methacrylate, bis-EMA, PEMA

FLS
DNT
TRS
VRS
ASL

(GCSB) Ethyl acetate >90%

(MLPB) Mixture of methoxy and ethoxy
silane derivatives,
(UFSB) A reactive polymer, a special
silane, 2-butanone
(SLCB) Ethylacetate, modied
polyacrylate, additives
(MLSB)
(FLSB) PMMA dissolved in MMA
(DNTB) Methylene chloride
(TRSB) MMA, THFMA, HDDMA
N/A
N/A

PMMA: poly(methyl methacrylate); PEMA: poly(ethyl methacrylate); MMA: methyl methacrylate; THFMA: tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate;
HDDMA: hexanediol dimethacrylate; EGDMA: ethylene glycol dimethacrylate; bis-EMA: bisphenol-A-diethyl methacrylate.

Table 3 The results of tensile strength and tensile bond strength values (in MPa)
Tensile strength
Mean

ASL
MLS
DNT
MLP
FLS
TRS
UFS
GCS
SLC
VRS

1.12a,z
1.64a,zy
1.66a,zy
2.42a,wx
1.62a,zy
2.85a,x
1.86a,y
3.96a,w
3.24a,xw
4.46a,v

Tensile bond strength to denture base

P65a

S.D.

0.27
0.35
0.48
0.75
0.63
0.42
0.25
0.66
0.22
0.68

PPVa

IVPa

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

0.71c,z
0.99b,zx
1.36a,zx
0.74b,zyx
2.05a,zyx
2.44a,zyx
1.59a,yx
2.08a,y
2.43a,y
4.18a,w

0.13
0.28
0.19
0.44
0.43
0.57
0.49
0.77
0.65
1.44

0.53d,z
1.05b,zy
1.34a,zyx
2.02a,zyx
1.59ab,zyx
1.47ab,yx
1.46a,yx
2.09a,yx
1.85a,x
4.59a,w

0.03
0.05
0.25
0.36
0.44
0.33
0.22
0.57
0.35
1.14

0.88b,z
0.84b,z
1.38a,zy
1.49a,zy
1.22b,zy
1.44b,zy
1.71a,y
2.74a,x
2.45a,x
3.35a,w

0.11
0.27
0.16
0.32
0.18
0.49
0.43
0.42
0.47
0.31

Groups with same letters ad horizontally, vz vertically are not signicantly different (P > 0.05).
a

Denture base polymers.

statistically similar (P > 0.05) except for ASL and MLS where
the tensile strength of the liners were higher than the bond
strength (P < 0.05).
Fig. 2 shows how the failure types were distributed for every
soft liner-denture base polymer combination. The majority of
bond failures were a mixture of failure in the bulk of the reline
material and at the interface. The locus of failure was observed
to be 12.6% A, 32.2% B, 36.6% C, and 18.6% D.

Test results for bond strength to dry P65 and P65 which
had been immersed in water are graphically presented in
Fig. 3. The bond strength results for poly(organosiloxane)
based soft liner materials were slightly higher compared to the
specimens made using wet substrate than the corresponding
untreated substrate.
Precipitates could be collected after centrifugation of the
bonding agents FLSB and SLCB. The analysis showed that both

Fig. 2 Chart showing the locus of failure for each specimen group. Visually pure interfacial failure (adhesive) (A, open),
interfacial failure with thin residue (B, pointed), interfacial failure with bulk failure (C, dashed), complete bulk failure of
relining material (D, closed).

1378

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

Fig. 3 Tensile strength of adhesion of soft liners bonded to

dry and wet substrate.

FLSB and SLCB contained PMMA. For the other bonding liquids,
centrifugation with ethanol resulted in no precipitate showing
that they do not contain poly(methacrylates).
The SEM images obtained from the interface of SLC, VRS
and FLS when used versus P65 are presented (Figs. 46). The
interface layers formed by soft liners and bonding agents were
observed to vary revealing different effects. The system with
SLC (Fig. 4) material shows a discernible but intimate contact whereas for VRS (Fig. 5) a much closer state indicating
interpenetration was observed making it difcult to distinguish the substrate and the soft liner. FLS (Fig. 6) had a very
obvious interface layer where the two materials meet and this
interface layer also shows gaps and cracks.

Fig. 4 (A) SLC and (B) P65. The arrows showing the intimate and continuous contact at the interphase.

Fig. 5 (A) VRS and (B) P65. Arrows indicate continuous interpenetration in the interphase.

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

1379

Fig. 6 (A) FLS and (B) P65. Arrows indicate the appearance of Acrylic Primer layer.

4.

Discussion

The 10 soft liners that were chosen for this study cover the
spectrum of main material types available today. With a large
sample size the bond strength results for different soft materials and the success of different bonding mechanisms can be
compared.
One material (MLP) is a well-known and extensively studied
liner, claimed to be a hydroxyl-terminated polydimethyl siloxane [21]. Studies [17,18,28] show it to have acceptable bonding
properties, suitable softness and relatively long service life.
In the present study, MLP was among the materials found to
have low bond strength, but failure was recorded as type C or
D (Fig. 2). These failure types include bulk failure in the liner
and show that the cohesive strength of this material played
an important role in failure during either initiation or propagation of the cracks.
Three different denture base polymers were used in the
present study. Although they had minor chemical differences,
they were chosen because of their different processing methods. Processing methods may inuence the surface properties
of the materials and hence bonding to the soft liners. The
MLP material has 3-methacryloyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane
in both the primer and the paste itself, which aids bonding
to PMMA via the methacrylate groups of the organo-silane in
addition to its function as a cross-linker [21]. The methacrylate group may bond to the pendant methacrylate groups on
the surface of the denture base [29]. The results show that the
MLP material had signicantly better tensile bond strength
to IVP and PPV than to P65. Different quantities of pendant
methacrylate groups present in the denture materials can be
one explanation [29].
Vinyl-containing poly(organosiloxane) (A-silicone) materials were proposed as replacement for MLP because of their

better handling properties [11]. The ve A-silicone materials

in this study varied in their bond strength to denture base
polymers as well as in tensile strength. SLC and GCS exhibited
the highest bond strengths. The GCS material has been tested
using a similar test method [12] with good agreement between
the results (Table 3).
SLC used a bonding agent (SLCB) which contains PMMA
dissolved in ethyl acetate as conrmed using the depolymerization method [27]. Although this bonding agent seems
to be similar to the bonding agent of FLS, the viscosity
of SLCB was lower, probably due to the lower molecular weight of the PMMA. This gives an advantage of a
thin bonding layer where the failure usually begins (Fig. 2).
The SEM images showed a continuous and intimate contact between the soft liner and denture base polymer
(Fig. 4).
We note that each of the A-silicone materials (MLS, DNT,
UFS, GCS, SLC) gave statistically similar bond strength results
for all three denture base polymers. The reason lies with
the bonding mechanisms; these materials apparently do not
adhere to the denture base by a chemical bond, at least not
covalent bonds [30]. The slight differences in the surface of
the denture base polymers therefore do not affect adhesion.
The bonding is obtained by the treatment of the surface layer
by a solvent and partially impregnating the surface layer with
a polymer solution.
Plasticized acrylics form another frequently used type of
soft liners. VRS, a PMMA-based system containing a high
quantity of the plasticizer acetyl tributylcitrate in the liquid
part had the highest bond strength to denture base polymers.
An advantage of this system is a very long polymerization
time at elevated temperatures. The SEM image (Fig. 5) showed
continuous contact at the interface with good interpenetration attained by the combination of the plasticizer and the
monomer methyl methacrylate.

1380

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

Another methacrylate-based system, ASL, contains butyl

methacrylate as monomer. Butyl methacrylate is a less polar
monomer than MMA with a molecular weight of 142.20 which
does not swell and penetrate the PMMA surface as readily as
MMA [27]. The situation is also made worse if little heat is
applied during processing. Conrming these disadvantages,
ASL gave the lowest bond strength results and this material
usually failed adhesively (Fig. 2).
The third methacrylate-based relining material, FLS, contains n-butyl methacrylate as a monomer. This material had a
bonding agent that contains PMMA dissolved in MMA [27]. The
reason for the failure at low stress levels may be the chemical ingredients of both relining material and recommended
adhesive liquid. An SEM image of the interface between this
material and P65 shows a thick layer of the precipitated PMMA
forming a weak interface layer (Fig. 6) [27].
The light-cured urethane containing material, TRS, had
moderate bond strength and leaves a thin layer on the PMMA
surface after failure (Fig. 2). The tensile strength of this material is found to be almost twice the bond strength to IVP and
PPV. This could be attributed to a low compatibility of the
lining material with the light-cured bonding agent.
The current test specimens were subjected to uniaxial tension, which involves lateral contraction of the soft liner (this
is observed as necking [12]). When the limit of homogeneous
deformation is reached, triaxial stresses develop within the
soft liner layer [31]. These stresses initiate cracks in the specimen where aws, air entrapments or weak boundary layers
exist. Investigation of fracture surfaces may reveal the complicated failure mechanisms of these materials. About 80% of
failures occur very near or at the interface between the bonding agent and the soft liner material (Fig. 2). These layers may
include several imperfections originating from environmental
effects. Contamination, uncontrolled humidity, and the surface structure of the denture base polymer substrate will all
impact negatively on the bond strength. When the solvent in
the bonding agent evaporates, the polymeric ingredients precipitate, accompanied by a volumetric shrinkage. This creates
a layer with stresses that affect the polymer chains. A wide
variation in the thickness of the precipitated layer can also be
seen.
The statistical analysis of the data conrms that the tensile strength of a soft liner denes the maximum tensile bond
strength that it can attain. It also demonstrates that this limit
to initial bond strength has been approached for most of
the materials used (Table 3). If it is assumed that the bond
obtained from such systems is stable in the oral environment,
one way of improving the performance seems to be related to
the mechanical properties of the soft liners rather than of the
bonding system.
The bond strength results of the poly(siloxane) soft liners
obtained with the water-immersed denture polymer substrate
were slightly higher than those of the corresponding dry specimens. Moreover, the specimens showed a tendency to fail
cohesively and not via the interfacial layers. This can be due
to the hydrolysis of poly(organosiloxane)hydride or alkoxy
poly(organosiloxane) molecules in contact with the water saturated surface of the denture base polymer. These reactions
may lead to interpenetration and cross-linking and may give
a better organized interface.

5.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the current laboratory investigation,

the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Vinyl poly(organosiloxane) systems tested in this study
gave satisfactory results. Different bond strength results
were obtained for chemically similar poly(organosiloxane)
materials indicating the importance of bonding agents or
primers.
2. Failure types recorded were observed to differ with groups
showing the complexity of denture base polymer-soft liner
joint failures. The most commonly observed failure types
against dry substrate included the interface layer. Therefore, attention to the surface preparation process is crucial
for improved adhesion.
3. Bond strength of poly(siloxane) liners to wet PMMA-based
denture-base polymer was found to be slightly higher than
bonding to the corresponding dry PMMA denture base substrate.
4. Based on the structure of the acrylic liners and the bonding
mechanisms a wide variation for tensile bond strength was
obtained.

references

[1] Mack PJ. Denture soft linings: clinical indications. Aust Dent
J 1989;34:4548.
[2] Al-Athel MS, Jagger RG. Effect of test method on the bond
strength of a silicone resilient denture lining material. J
Prosthet Dent 1996;76:53540.
[3] Al-Athel MS, Jagger RG, Jerolimov V. Bone strength of
resilient lining materials to various denture base resins. Int J
Prosthodont 1996;9:16770.
[4] Aydin AK, Terzioglu H, Akinay AE, Ulubayram K, Hasirci N.
Bond strength and failure analysis of lining materials to
denture resin. Dent Mater 1999;15:2118.
[5] Baysan A, Parker S, Wright PS. Adhesion and tear energy of a
long-term soft lining material activated by rapid microwave
energy. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:1827.
[6] Braden M, Wright PS, Parker S. Soft lining materialsa
review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1995;3:
16374.
[7] Kulak-Ozkan Y, Sertgoz A, Gedik H. Effect of thermocycling
on tensile bond strength of six silicone-based, resilient
denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:30310.
[8] Kutay O, Bilgin T, Sakar O, Beyli M. Tensile bond strength of a
soft lining with acrylic denture base resins. Eur J
Prosthodont Restor Dent 1994;2:1236.
[9] Kutay O. Comparison of tensile and peel bond strengths of
resilient liners. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:52531.
[10] Mack PJ. Denture soft linings: materials available. Aust Dent
J 1989;34:51721.
[11] McCabe JF. A polyvinylsiloxane denture soft lining material. J
Dent 1998;26:5216.
[12] McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Kamohara H. Adhesive bond strength
and compliance for denture soft lining materials.
Biomaterials 2002;23:134752.

[13] Mese A, Guzel

KG, Uysal E. Effect of storage duration on
tensile bond strength of acrylic or silicone-based soft
denture liners to a processed denture base polymer. Acta
Odontol Scand 2005;63:315.

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 13731381

[14] Pinto JR, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, de Arruda Nobilo MA.
Effect of thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of 4
long-term soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:
51621.
[15] Qudah S, Harrison A, Huggett R. Soft lining materials in
prosthetic dentistry: a review. Int J Prosthodont
1990;3:47783.
[16] Sertgoz A, Kulak Y, Gedik H, Taskonak B. The effect of
thermocycling on peel strength of six soft lining materials. J
Oral Rehabil 2002;29:5837.
[17] Wright PS. Characterization of the adhesion of soft lining
materials to poly (methyl methacrylate). J Dent Res
1982;61:10025.
[18] Wright PS. Observations on long-term use of a soft-lining
material for mandibular complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent
1994;72:38592.
[19] Amin WM, Fletcher AM, Ritchie GM. The nature of the
interface between polymethyl methacrylate denture base
materials and soft lining materials. J Dent 1981;9:
33646.

[20] Schenk I, Schroder V, Jude

HD. Bewertung der Haftfestigkeit

von weichbleibenden Underfutterungskunststoffen

auf
A-Silikonbasis zu PMMA-Prothesenbasiskunststoffen. Dtsch

Zahnarztl
Z 2002;57:2415.
[21] Baysan A, Whiley R, Wright PS. Use of microwave energy to
disinfect a long-term soft lining material contaminated with
Candida albicans or Staphylococcus aureus. J Prosthet Dent
1998;79:4548.

1381

[22] El-Hadary A, Drummond JL. Comparative study of water

sorption, solubility, and tensile bond strength of two soft
lining materials. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:356561.
[23] ASTM D 429-81. Standard Test Methods for Rubber
PropertyAdhesion to rigid substrates. Annual book of
ASTM standards. West Consohocken, PA: ASTM; 1998.
[24] Braden M. Polymeric dental materials. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag; 1997. p. 101113.
[25] Emmer Jr TJ, Emmer Sr TJ, Vaidynathan J, Vaidynathan TK.
Bond strength of permanent soft denture liners bonded to
the denture base. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:595601.
[26] Cecile G, Javid TJ, Colaizzi FA, Gibbs CG. Biting strength and
chewing forces in complete denture wearers. J Prosthet Dent
1990;63:54953.
[27] Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE. Evaluation of adhesion of chairside
hard relining materials to denture base polymers. J Prosthet
Dent 2005;94:44552.
[28] Jagger RG, Al-Athel MS, Jagger DC, Vowles RW. Some
variables inuencing the bond strength between PMMA and
a silicone denture lining material. Int J Prosthodont
2002;15:558.
[29] Ruyter IE, ysaed H. Conversion in denture base polymer. J
Biomed Mater Res 1982;16:74154.
[30] Sarac YS, Basoglu T, Ceylan GK, Sarac D, Yapici O. Effect of
denture base surface pretreatment on microleakage of a
silicone-based resilient liner. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:2837.
[31] Kinloch AJ, Young RJ. Fracture behaviour of polymers.
London: Applied Science Publishers; 1983. p. 398411.