Hardness and surface roughness of

reline and denture base acrylic resins

after repeated disinfection procedures
Ana Lucia Machado, DDS, MSc, PhD,a Larry C. Breeding, DDS,
MSc, PhD,b Carlos Eduardo Vergani, DDS, MSc, PhD,c and
Luciano Elias da Cruz Perez, DDS, MScd
Araraquara Dental School, So Paulo State University (UNESP),
Araraquara, So Paulo, Brazil; School of Dentistry, University of
Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Miss
Statement of problem. Microwave irradiation and immersion in chemical solutions have been recommended for
denture disinfection. However, the effect of these procedures on the surface characteristics of denture base and reline
resins has not been completely evaluated.
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of microwave and chemical disinfection on the Vickers
hardness (VHN) and surface roughness (Ra, m) of 2 hard chairside reline resins (Kooliner, DuraLiner II), and 1 heatpolymerizing denture base resin (Lucitone 550).
Material and methods. Specimens (12 x 12 x 3 mm) were divided into 2 control and 4 test groups (n=8). Hardness
and roughness measurements were performed after: polymerization and immersion in water (37C) for 7 days (controls), or repeated exposure to disinfection by immersion in sodium perborate (50C/10 min) or microwave irradiation (650 W/6 min). Measurements of surface roughness (Ra, m) and hardness (kg/mm2) were analyzed using 3-way
ANOVA and Tukeys Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (=.05).
Results. Microwave and chemical disinfection increased the mean (SD) hardness of Kooliner (from 4.1 to 7.5 kg/
mm2) and DuraLiner II (from 2.6 to 5.6 kg/mm2), whereas Lucitone 550 (14.4 kg/mm2) remained unaffected. Disinfection by immersion in sodium perborate increased the surface roughness of DuraLiner II (from 0.13 to 0.26 m)
and Kooliner (from 0.16 to 0.26 m), regardless of the number of cycles. For Lucitone 550, an increase in roughness
was observed after 2 cycles of chemical disinfection (from 0.12 to 0.26 m). Two cycles of microwave disinfection
increased the roughness of both reline resins (DuraLiner II: from 0.13 to 0.22 m; Kooliner: from 0.16 to 0.24 m),
whereas repeated microwave disinfection increased the roughness of DuraLiner II (from 0.11 to 0.25 m).
Conclusions. Disinfection by immersion in sodium perborate or microwave irradiation did not adversely affect the
hardness of all materials evaluated. The effect of both disinfection methods on the roughness varied among materials.
(J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:115-122)

Clinical Implications

This study suggests that immersion in sodium perborate solution and microwave disinfection did not adversely affect the
hardness of denture base and hard reline resins. However,
these methods may increase the surface roughness, and the effect seems to be material dependent.

This investigation was supported by the Brazilian National Council of Research, CNPq (grant 520866/00-2).
Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, So Paulo State University.
Chair, Department of Care Planning and Restorative Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi Medical Center.
c
Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, So Paulo State University.
d
Graduate student, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, So Paulo State University.
a

Machado et al

116

Volume 102 Issue 2

Direct relining of removable prostheses with hard chairside reline materials is faster and easier to perform
than laboratory relining,1 and has
been considered suitable for improving the fit of the denture bases to the
supporting tissues.2 Denture base materials can be colonized and deeply infected by microorganisms.3 Contaminated prostheses can provide a source
of cross-contamination between patients and dental personnel.4 Denture
plaque is also a major factor in the
etiology of denture-related stomatitis, a common opportunistic infection seen in denture wearers.5 In addition, the presence of microorganisms
in the oral cavity is a risk factor for respiratory tract infection by aspiration
in the elderly.6 Therefore, denture disinfection has been recommended as
an essential procedure for preventing
cross-contamination and the maintenance of a healthy oral mucosa. Many
protocols for denture disinfection
have been proposed, including immersion in chemical solutions7-16 and
microwave irradiation.17-21 A previous
clinical study demonstrated that denture disinfection can be achieved by
using an infection control protocol,
which included scrubbing the denture with 4% chlorhexidine combined
with immersion in 3.78% sodium
perborate solution at 50C for 10
minutes.11 A preliminary study demonstrated that microwave irradiation
with the specimens immersed in water
resulted in sterilization against pathogenic microorganisms colonized on 3
hard reline resins.18
A denture disinfection method
should be effective for inactivation
of microorganisms without adverse
effects on the denture materials. The
roughness of the acrylic resin surfaces is important, since the adhesion of microorganisms to a surface
is a prerequisite for the colonization
of that surface.22 Surface irregularities increase the likelihood of microorganisms remaining on the denture
surface after the prosthesis has been
cleaned.23,24 Another property that
can influence the surface characteris-

tics of acrylic resins is hardness, which

is indicative of the ease of finishing of
a material as well as its resistance to
in-service scratching during cleaning procedures.25 During disinfection
by immersion, the acrylic resins are
in contact with chemicals, including
glutaraldehyde,9 alcohol,10 chloride,21
sodium hypochlorite,15 chlorhexidine
gluconate,11,15 and oxidizing agents,
such as sodium perborate.11-13,26,27 It
has been observed that some disinfectant solutions may have a softening effect on acrylic resins, reducing
the surface hardness.9,10 Changes in
surface hardness and roughness of
denture base acrylic resins caused by
different denture immersion solutions
have been reported.13 For microwave
disinfection, the acrylic resins are immersed in water at a high temperature, and this may cause a breakdown
of the surface layer.8 It was found that
microwave sterilization significantly
decreased the hardness of 5 brands
of acrylic resin artificial teeth,19 and
increased the surface roughness of
a mechanically polished microwave
denture base acrylic resin.20 In addition, the heating during chemical and
microwave disinfection may enhance
further polymerization reactions and
residual monomer release.28-32 Both
of these may reduce the plasticizing
effect of unreacted monomer molecules and, consequently, influence
the properties of the resins, primarily in the surface layer,33-36 which is
known to contain a higher content of
residual monomer.37 A review of the
literature revealed that, while several
studies evaluated the effect of disinfectant solutions and microwave
disinfection on denture base acrylic
resins,8-10,12-14,17,20,21 little information
is available on the effects of these procedures on hardness and roughness of
hard chairside reline acrylic resins.12,15
The purpose of this study was to
investigate the effect of the infection
control protocol and microwave irradiation on the hardness and roughness of 2 hard chairside reline resins
and 1 heat-polymerizing denture base
acrylic resin. The tested hypothesis

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

was that both disinfectant methods

may cause adverse effects on the
hardness and roughness of the denture base and reline materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The materials used in this study
are presented in Table I. These materials were selected to evaluate the influence of the disinfection methods on
the hardness and roughness of reline
resins having different compositions.
The Lucitone 550 was selected to represent the conventional polymethyl
methacrylate heat-polymerizing acrylic resins, which are commonly used
for the fabrication of denture bases.
Test specimens were produced in
molds prepared by the investment of
stainless steel dies (12 x 12 x 3 mm)
in silicone rubber, further supported
by dental stone within the flask. The
powder-liquid ratio of the polymer
dough for all materials was mixed
according to the manufacturers instructions (Table I), inserted into
the molds, and packed. For the hard
chairside reline resins, the specimens
were kept under pressure at room
temperature for the time recommended by the manufacturers (Table
I). Lucitone 550 specimens were also
polymerized under pressure in a thermostatically controlled water bath
(Termotron P-100; Termotron Equipamentos Ltd, Piracicaba, So Paulo,
Brazil), using the short polymerization cycle (Table I). After polymerization, the specimens were visually
inspected, and were required to have
a smooth surface without voids or porosity; otherwise, they were discarded. Immediately after polymerization,
any flash and excess were removed
by polishing using progressively finer
grades (600-1200) of silicon carbide
paper (3M of Brazil; So Paulo, Brazil), to obtain a smooth, flat surface.
Forty-eight specimens were produced
for each material and divided into 2
controls and 4 experimental groups
of 8 specimens each (Table II). In the
control group ND, the surface roughness and hardness were measured af-

Machado et al

117

August 2009

Table I. Materials used in study

Batch
Number

Powder/
Liquid
Ratio

Composition
Powder (P)

Liquid (L)

Polymerization
Cycle

Product

Manufacturer

DuraLiner II

Reliance Dental
Mfg Co,
Worth, Ill

powder: 030993
liquid: 020394

10 ml/7 ml

PEMA

BMA

12 min at room
temperature

Kooliner

GC America, Inc,
Alsip, Ill

powder: 091093a
liquid: 100493a

10 ml/4 ml

PEMA

IBMA

10 min at room
temperature

Dentsply Ind
Co Ltd,
Petrpolis,
Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil

powder: 200792
liquid: 021294

21 g/10 ml

PMMA

MMA/
EDGMA

90 min at 73C
and then 100C
boiling water
for 30 min

Lucitone 550

PEMA, polyethyl methacrylate; PMMA, polymethyl methacrylate; IBMA, isobutyl methacrylate; BMA, butyl methacrylate;
MMA, methyl methacrylate; EDGMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate

Table II. Group codes of disinfection methods tested

Group

Disinfection Method

Control ND

Not disinfected

Control WI7

Immersed in distilled water at 37C for 7 days

ICP2

Disinfected twice using disinfection control protocol (scrubbing with 4% chlorhexidine for 1 min,
immersing in 3.8% sodium perborate solution at 50C for 10 min, and immersing in water for 3 min)

ICP7

Immersed in the 3.8% solution of sodium perborate for 7 days. Fresh solution prepared every day by
dissolving disinfectant sodium perborate in distilled water at 50C

MW2

Disinfected twice using microwave disinfection (immersed in 200 ml of water and irradiated with
650 W for 6 min)

MW7

Disinfected daily for 7 days using microwave disinfection, stored in water at 37C between
disinfection cycles

ter polymerization for the hard reline

resins, whereas for the heat-polymerized denture base acrylic resin, measurements were made after the specimens had been immersed in water at
37C for 48 hours.38 Specimens from
ICP2 and MW2 test groups were disinfected twice to simulate the disinfection which occurs, first, when contaminated dentures are taken from
the patient, and then again before the
dentures are returned to the patient.

Machado et al

Given that a number of follow-up visits for denture base adjustments may
be required after relining, the dentures
may be exposed to repeated disinfection procedures. Therefore, groups
ICP7 and MW7 were included in an
effort to detect any possible cumulative effect of the disinfection methods
on the hardness and roughness of the
materials evaluated.
Microhardness
measurements
were obtained with a Vickers hardness

tester (Otto Wolpert-Werke GmbH,

Ludwigshafen, Germany). The Vickers hardness test has been considered a valid tool for evaluating the
hardness, viscoelastic properties, and
other responses of rigid polymers,39
and some studies have used the Vickers hardness test to detect changes in
hardness of denture base acrylic resins.40,41 The test involves the use of a
diamond indenter point in the shape
of a square-based pyramid. For Luci-

118

Volume 102 Issue 2

tone 550 and Kooliner specimens, a
30-g load and a 30-second time period were used. When the DuraLiner
II material was tested, the 30-g load
produced an indentation size and
depth that were too large, thus making the measurements impracticable.
Therefore, the load was decreased to
10 g so that the indentation could be
properly measured. The diagonals of
the pyramid impressed on the specimen by the Vickers indenter were
measured and noted. The operator
of the test machine read the lengths
of the diagonals immediately after
each indentation, with a minimal (as
brief as 10 seconds) period of time
elapsing between making and reading the indentations. It was assumed
that due to the short time period that
elapsed between making and reading
the indentations, the viscoelastic recovery of the diagonals after indentation was minimal.39 The smooth, flat
surface of the specimens facilitated
the observation of the diagonals during the measurements. Eight indentations were made at different points on
each specimen, and the mean Vickers
hardness number (VHN - kg/mm2)
was then calculated for that specimen.
The surface roughness (Ra, m)
was analyzed with a profilometer (Prazis Rug-03; Arotec, So Paulo, So
Paulo, Brazil) with a diamond stylus
(tip radius of 2 m). Ra is the mathematical average of the absolute val-

ues of the measured profile height of

surface irregularities, measured from
a mean line within a preset length of
the specimen.42 A reading was obtained by the needle passing across
an 0.8-mm length at 0.5 mm/s, to the
nearest 0.01 m. This procedure was
repeated 2 more times at the same position, for a total of 3 readings. Therefore, 3 readings, each consisting of 3
lengths of 0.8 mm, were made at each
position, resulting in a total reading
length of 2.4 mm. Surface roughness
was measured at 4 positions, radially
across each specimen, and a final Ra
average was then calculated for that
specimen. Before analyses of hardness and roughness data, homogeneity of variance was tested with the
Levenes test, and normality was tested with the Lilliefors test. Three-way
analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
conducted on the hardness (kg/mm2)
and surface roughness (Ra) data, followed by Tukeys Honestly Significant
Difference (HSD) test for post hoc
comparisons (=.05).

RESULTS
The results of the analysis of variance (Table III) of hardness data (kg/
mm2) revealed that material, disinfection method, cycle, and their 2- and
3-way interactions were significant
(P<.001). Table IV shows that microwave (P=.004) and chemical disinfection (P<.001) resulted in a sig-

nificant increase in hardness for the

Kooliner material, regardless of the
number of cycles. For both disinfection methods, DuraLiner II specimens
submitted to 2 cycles of disinfection
exhibited significantly higher hardness
values (P<.001) than those not disinfected (control, ND). A significant increase in hardness (P<.001) was also
observed for Kooliner and DuraLiner
II materials when the specimens were
either immersed in water for 7 days
or disinfected daily. The hardness of
the Lucitone 550 material was not
significantly influenced by either the
disinfection methods or the number
of cycles. For all experimental conditions, the mean hardness values of
the reline materials were significantly
lower (P<.001) than those of Lucitone
550 denture base resin. All Kooliner
reline resin specimens were significantly harder (P<.001) than those
made with DuraLiner II, with the exception of group WI7; no significant
difference was recorded between the
Kooliner and DuraLiner II materials in
this group.
The 3-way ANOVA (Table V) revealed that the main factors (material, disinfection method, and cycle)
and their 2- and 3-way interactions
significantly affected the variable
roughness (P<.001). It can be seen
from Table VI that Kooliner and DuraLiner II specimens exhibited a significant increase (P<.001) in roughness
(Ra, m) after 2 cycles of disinfec-

Table III. Results of 3-way ANOVA for hardness

df

Mean Square

Material (M)

1480.6

7327.2

<.001

Disinfection method (D)

7.7

38.1

<.001

Cycle (C)

51.7

255.9

<.001

MxD

3.2

15.7

<.001

DxC

2.7

13.2

<.001

MxC

9.5

46.8

<.001

MxDxC

1.1

5.5

<.001

126

0.2

Source

Error

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Machado et al

119

August 2009

Table IV. Mean (SD) hardness values (kg/mm2) of materials evaluated

Disinfection Methods
No Disinfection

Microwave Disinfection

Infection Control Protocol

Control
ND

Control
WI7

MW2

MW7

ICP2

ICP7

Lucitone 550

14.4 (0.5)aA

14.9 (0.4)aA

14.4 (0.6)aA

14.5 (0.4)aA

14.7 (0.7)aA

14.6 (0.3)aA

Kooliner

4.1 (0.6)aB

5.5 (0.6)bB

5.1 (0.5)bB

7.5 (0.4)dB

5.3 (0.5)bB

6.6 (0.3)cB

DuraLiner II

2.6 (0.3)aC

5.1 (0.2)cdB

3.8 (0.3)bC

5.6 (0.4)dC

4.3 (0.4)bcC

5.2 (0.3)dC

Material

Horizontally, means with same superscript lowercase letters are not statistically significant (P >.05).
Vertically, means with same superscript uppercase letters are not statistically significant (P >.05).

Table V. Results of 3-way ANOVA for roughness

df

Mean Square

Material (M)

0.01

16.9

<.001

Disinfection method (D)

0.11

197.4

<.001

Cycle (C)

0.02

38.5

<.001

MxD

0.01

16.9

<.001

DxC

0.01

18.1

<.001

MxC

0.02

30.5

<.001

MxDxC

0.01

11.8

<.001

126

0.0006

Source

Error

Table VI. Mean (SD) roughness values (Ra, m) of materials evaluated

Disinfection Methods
No Disinfection

Microwave Disinfection

Infection Control Protocol

Control
ND

Control
WI7

MW2

MW7

ICP2

ICP7

Lucitone 550

0.12 (0.02)aA

0.22 (0.02)bA

0.14 (0.02)aA

0.25 (0.02)bcA

0.26 (0.02)cA

0.25 (0.02)bcA

Kooliner

0.16 (0.03)aB

0.21 (0.02)bA

0.24 (0.01)bcB

0.23 (0.04)bcA

0.26 (0.02)cA

0.25 (0.02)cA

DuraLiner II

0.13 (0.02)aAB

0.11 (0.02)aB

0.22 (0.02)bB

0.25 (0.03)bA

0.26 (0.02)bA

0.24 (0.03)bA

Material

Horizontally, means with same superscript lowercase letters are not statistically significant (P >.05).
Vertically, means with same superscript uppercase letters are not statistically significant (P >.05).

tion, regardless of the method used.

For both Kooliner and DuraLiner II,
an increase in roughness was observed after 7 cycles of disinfection
using the infection control protocol
(P<.001). Seven cycles of microwave

Machado et al

disinfection significantly increased

the surface roughness of DuraLiner
II (P<.001). Lucitone 550 specimens
exhibited significantly higher mean
roughness after 2 cycles of chemical
disinfection (P<.001). An increase in

roughness was also observed when

Lucitone 550 and Kooliner specimens
were immersed in water for 7 days
(P<.001). Comparison among materials revealed that the mean surface
roughness of Lucitone 550 was sig-

120

Volume 102 Issue 2

nificantly lower than that of Kooliner
in both the ND control (P=.039) and
MW2 (P<.001) groups. For control
group WI7, DuraLiner II specimens
showed the lowest roughness mean
value (P<.001). No significant differences in roughness were noted among
materials for groups MW7, ICP2, and
ICP7 (P>.05).

DISCUSSION
This study evaluated the effect
of an infection control protocol and
microwave irradiation on the hardness and roughness of 1 denture base
acrylic resin and 2 hard chairside reline resins. Considering that, during
clinical service of dentures, several
disinfection procedures may be necessary for infection control and stomatitis treatment, the effect of repeated
exposure of the materials to the disinfection methods was also evaluated.
The hypothesis that both disinfection
methods could cause adverse effects
on the hardness of the denture base
and reline materials was rejected. The
hardness of the Lucitone 550 denture
base resin specimens was not affected
by either disinfection method evaluated. The hardness of the hard chairside
reline resin Kooliner was increased
after repeated disinfection, regardless of the method used. A significant
increase in hardness was also observed when DuraLiner II specimens
were disinfected twice, using either
microwave irradiation or the infection control protocol. One possible
explanation for the increase in hardness observed for both Kooliner and
DuraLiner II specimens may be that
the amount of unreacted monomer
in the specimens was reduced during
the disinfection procedures. Residual
monomer is known to have a plasticizing effect which reduces the polymer
interchain forces so that deformation
occurs more easily under load during
hardness tests.34 The residual monomer content can be reduced by 2
temperature-dependent mechanisms:
further polymerization reaction at the
sites of active radicals28 and diffusion

of the unreacted molecules out of the

resin.29,31,34 In the present study, when
the infection control protocol was
used, the materials were immersed in
sodium perborate solution at 50C.
For the microwave disinfection method, the water in which the materials
were placed reached the boiling temperature. Therefore, it is likely that the
heating of the acrylic resins during
the disinfection procedures may have
enhanced the further polymerization
and residual monomer release processes. As a result, the hardness of the
Kooliner and DuraLiner II disinfected
specimens increased. Faltermeier et
al36 also observed that heat, used as
a secondary polymerization method,
significantly increased the hardness
of polymethyl methacrylate autopolymerizing acrylic resins. Similarly,
Braun et al35 demonstrated that the
leaching of residual monomer from
denture base materials contributed to
the higher hardness values observed
after storage in water.
Neither disinfection method promoted detectable changes in the hardness of the Lucitone 550 denture base
acrylic resin. A previous study demonstrated that Lucitone 550 specimens,
when polymerized using the short cycle, as in the present study, exhibited
a significantly lower level of residual
monomer than Kooliner and DuraLiner II.32 Therefore, it is likely that
the monomer release and continued
polymerization reaction, which may
result in increased hardness, were reduced in the Lucitone 550 specimens
compared with Kooliner and DuraLiner II specimens. The absence of a
negative effect of either disinfection
method on the hardness of the denture base acrylic resin Lucitone 550
is in agreement with other studies,
which also found that repeated microwave disinfection17,21 or treatment
with warm water (40C) and alkaline
peroxide for 30 days14 did not result in
significant changes in hardness for the
heat-polymerized acrylic resins evaluated.
Lucitone 550 was consistently
harder than the reline materials for all

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

experimental conditions. Differences

in composition of the materials evaluated may have been partly responsible
for these findings. The manufacturers
purport that the liquids of Kooliner
and DuraLiner II materials contain
the monomers isobutyl methacrylate
and butyl methacrylate, respectively.
They also purport that the powder
of both materials is composed of
polyethyl methacrylate (PEMA). According to Ping Chaing et al,1 reline
resins are mechanically weaker than
polymethyl methacrylate, and this
was supported by the results of the
present study, which showed that the
reline resins exhibited significantly
lower hardness mean values than the
heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate-based acrylic resin. The results
could also be attributed to the fact
that, for the Lucitone 550 denture
base acrylic resin, the polymerization
is initiated by heat, while for the reline resins Kooliner and DuraLiner
II, the initiator is an amine-peroxide
that induces free radical polymerization upon mixing at room temperature. The activation mode of polymerization significantly influences the
degree of conversion of monomer to
polymer.30 Hardness is sensitive to the
residual monomer content,33 which
was found to be lower in Lucitone
550.32 These factors may explain why
the heat-polymerized Lucitone 550
specimens showed higher hardness
values than the autopolymerizing reline acrylic resins. The lowest hardness values, observed for DuraLiner
II specimens, could also be related to
this materials powder-to-liquid ratio,
since it has been demonstrated that
the lower this ratio, the higher the
content of residual monomer remaining in the polymerized resin.31
The hypothesis that both disinfectant methods could cause adverse
effects on the roughness of the denture base and reline materials was
accepted. With the exception of Lucitone 550 resin, 2 cycles of microwave
irradiation disinfection significantly
increased the surface roughness of
the materials. One possible explana-

Machado et al

121

August 2009
tion for these findings is that the high
water temperature reached during the
disinfection procedure lead to alterations in the surface of the Kooliner
and DuraLiner II resins, thus increasing their surface roughness. Specimens of a heat-polymerized acrylic
denture-base material subjected to
boiling or hot water were found to exhibit a breakdown of the surface layer,
probably as a result of microcrazing
of the surface, with loss of integrity,
as indicated by scanning electron microscopy observation.8 The increase
in roughness of Kooliner and DuraLiner II resins may also be related
to the fact that the level of residual
monomer in autopolymerized acrylic
resins is higher in the surface layer.37
Although the temperature used in
the disinfection procedure involving
immersion in sodium perborate solution was approximately half of that
used in the microwave disinfection
procedure, both methods promoted
similar effects on the surface roughness. After 2 cycles of disinfection by
immersion in sodium perborate, all
materials demonstrated a significant
increase in roughness. Kooliner and
DuraLiner II specimens also exhibited
significantly rougher surfaces after 7
days of immersion in sodium perborate than those specimens immersed
in water for the same period. For microwave irradiation, the specimens
were immersed in water only, whereas
for the infection control protocol, the
specimens were immersed in an alkaline peroxide solution, which was prepared by dissolving sodium perborate
in water.7 Sodium perborate is an oxidizing agent that decomposes to form
sodium metaborate, hydrogen peroxide, and nascent oxygen when hydrated.26 The bubbling created by this
release of oxygen is the mechanism
behind the mechanical cleansing effect. In addition, the oxidizing agents
help to remove stains.7 Sodium perborate is also frequently used as a
bleaching agent for nonvital teeth. In
this procedure, hydrogen peroxide releases active oxygen, which begins the
bleaching process.27 Hence, it is likely

Machado et al

that the increase in surface roughness

observed after chemical disinfection
may have been a result of the combination of the soaking temperature
and the oxygen-liberating solution.
Some in vivo studies suggested a
threshold surface roughness for bacterial retention (Ra = 0.2 m) below
which no further reduction in bacterial accumulation can be expected.24
In the present study, the mean roughness values of all specimens remained
relatively close to the threshold limit
value. These findings suggest that the
rougher specimen surface after disinfection may not render the surface
more prone to the adhesion of microorganisms. Nevertheless, further
studies are recommended to evaluate the effect of this increased surface
roughness on plaque accumulation.
There are a number of limitations
of this study. Only 2 hard chairside
reline resins were evaluated, and the
exposure of the materials to the disinfection methods was relatively low.
A previous study reported that noticeable whitening of specimens immersed in boiling or hot water, with
or without a denture cleaner, was
apparent only after 35 soaks.8 Furthermore, a consideration for future
studies might be the use of a scanning
electron microscope to evaluate surface texture. A more thorough understanding of how the acrylic resins are
affected by these disinfection methods could thereby be achieved.

CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in
vitro study, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1. The hardness of all materials
was not adversely affected by any of
the disinfection methods evaluated.
2. Immersion in sodium perborate
significantly increased the roughness
of all materials, whereas microwave
irradiation promoted a significant increase in roughness of the reline resins.
3. Repeated disinfection by immersion in sodium perborate result-

ed in significantly increased surface

roughness of Kooliner and DuraLiner
II materials.
4. Daily microwave irradiation
for 7 days resulted in significantly increased surface roughness of the DuraLiner II material.

REFERENCES
1. Ping Chaing BK. Polymers in the service of
prosthetic dentistry. J Dent 1984;12:20314.
2. Haywood J, Basker RM, Watson CJ, Wood
DJ. A comparison of three hard chairside
denture reline materials. Part I. Clinical
evaluation. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent
2003;11:157-63.
3. Glass RT, Bullard JW, Hadley CS, Mix EW,
Conrad RS. Partial spectrum of microorganisms found in dentures and possible
disease implications. J Am Osteopath Assoc
2001;101:92-4.
4. Jafari AA, Tafti AF, Falahzada H, Yavari MT.
Evaluation of presence and levels of contamination in pumice powder and slurry
used in clinical dental laboratories. Middle
East J Sci Res 2006;1:50-3.
5. Barbeau J, Sguin J, Goulet JP, de Koninck
L, Avon SL, Lalonde B, et al. Reassessing the presence of Candida albicans in
denture-related stomatitis. Oral Surg
Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
2003;95:51-9.
6. Sumi Y, Miura H, Sunakawa M, Michiwaki
Y, Sakagami N. Colonization of denture
plaque by respiratory pathogens in dependent elderly. Gerodontology 2002;19:25-9.
7. Abelson DC. Denture plaque and denture
cleansers: review of the literature. Gerodontics 1985;1:202-6.
8. Crawford CA, Lloyd CH, Newton JP, Yemm
R. Denture bleaching: a laboratory simulation of patients cleaning procedures. J
Dent 1986;14:258-61.
9. Shen C, Javid NS, Colaizzi FA. The effect
of glutaraldehyde base disinfectants
on denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent
1989;61:583-9.
10.Asad T, Wattkinson AC, Huggett R. The
effects of various disinfectant solutions
on the surface hardness of an acrylic resin
denture base material. Int J Prosthodont
1993;6:9-12.
11.Pavarina AC, Pizzolitto AC, Machado AL,
Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET. An infection
control protocol: effectiveness of immersion solutions to reduce the microbial
growth on dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil
2003;30:532-6.
12.Haywood J, Wood DJ, Gilchrist A, Basker
RM, Watson CJ. A comparison of three
hard chairside denture reline materials.
Part II. Changes in colour and hardness following immersion in three commonly used
denture cleansers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor
Dent 2003;11:165-9.

122

Volume 102 Issue 2

13.Rodrigues Garcia RC, Joane Augusto de S
Jr, Rached RN, Del Bel Cury AA. Effect of
denture cleansers on the surface roughness
and hardness of a microwave-cured acrylic
resin and dental alloys. J Prosthodont
2004;13:173-8.
14.Devlin H, Kaushik P. The effect of water
absorption on acrylic surface properties. J
Prosthodont 2005;14:233-8.
15.Azevedo A, Machado AL, Vergani CE,
Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC, Magnani R.
Effect of disinfectants on the hardness and
roughness of reline acrylic resins. J Prosthodont 2006;15:235-42.
16.Paranhos HF, Silva-Lovato CH, Souza RF,
Cruz PC, Freitas KM, Peracini A. Effects of
mechanical and chemical methods on denture biofilm accumulation. J Oral Rehabil
2007;34:606-12.
17.Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Faler TA. Microwave disinfection of denture base materials
colonized with Candida albicans. J Prosthet
Dent 1999;81:207-14.
18.Neppelenbroek KH, Pavarina AC, Spolidorio DM, Vergani CE, Mima EG, Machado
AL. Effectiveness of microwave sterilization
on three hard chairside reline resins. Int J
Prosthodont 2003;16:616-20.
19.Campanha NH, Pavarina AC, Vergani CE,
Machado AL. Effect of microwave sterilization and water storage on the Vickers
hardness of acrylic resin denture teeth. J
Prosthet Dent 2005;93:483-7.
20.Sartori EA, Schmidt CB, Walber LF, Shinkai
RS. Effect of microwave disinfection on
denture base adaptation and resin surface
roughness. Braz Dent J 2006;17:195-200.
21.Sartori EA, Schmidt CB, Mota EG, Hirakata LM, Shinkai RS. Cumulative effect
of disinfection procedures on the microhardness and tridimensional stability of a
poly(methyl methacrylate) denture base
resin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
2008;86B:360-4.
22.Verran J, Maryan CJ. Retention of Candida
albicans on acrylic resin and silicone of different surface topography. J Prosthet Dent
1997;77:535-9.

23.Radford DR, Sweet SP, Challacombe SJ,

Walter JD. Adherence of Candida albicans
to denture-base materials with different
surface finishes. J Dent 1998;26:577-83.
24.Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M.
Comparison of surface roughness of oral
hard materials to the threshold surface
roughness for bacterial plaque retention:
a review of the literature. Dent Mater
1997;13:258-69.
25.Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craigs restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis:
Elsevier; 2006. p. 79.
26.Loxley EC, Liewehr FR, Buxton TB, McPherson JC 3rd. The effect of various intracanal
oxidizing agents on the push-out strength
of various perforation repair materials. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
Endod 2003;95:490-4.
27.Weiger R, Kuhn A, Lst C. Effect of various
types of sodium perborate on the pH of
bleaching agents. J Endod 1993;19:239-41.
28.Lamb DJ, Ellis B, Priestley D. The effects
of process variables on levels of residual
monomer in autopolymerizing dental
acrylic resin. J Dent 1983;11:80-8.
29.Vallittu PK, Miettinen V, Alakuijala P.
Residual monomer content and its release
into water from denture base materials.
Dent Mater 1995;11:338-42.
30.Vallittu PK, Ruyter IE, Buykuilmaz S. Effect of polymerization temperature and
time on the residual monomer content
of denture base polymers. Eur J Oral Sci
1998;106:588-93.
31.Kedjarune U, Charoenworaluk N, Koontongkaew S. Release of methyl methacrylate from heat-cured and autopolymerized
resins: cytotoxicity testing related to residual monomer. Aust Dent J 1999;44:25-30.
32.Urban VM, Machado AL, Oliveira RV,
Vergani CE, Pavarina AC, Cass QB. Residual
monomer of reline acrylic resins. Effect
of water-bath and microwave postpolymerization treatments. Dent Mater
2007;23:363-8.
33.Frangou MJ, Polyzois GL. Effect of microwave polymerisation on indentation creep,
recovery and hardness of acrylic denture
base materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor
Dent 1993;1:111-5.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

34.Lee SY, Lai YL, Hsu TS. Influence of polymerization conditions on monomer elution
and microhardness of autopolymerized
polymethyl methacrylate resin. Eur J Oral
Sci 2002;110:179-83.
35.Braun KO, Mello JA, Rached RN, Del Bel
Cury AA. Surface texture and some properties of acrylic resins submitted to chemical
polishing. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:91-8.
36.Faltermeier A, Rosentritt M, Mssig D.
Acrylic removable appliances: comparative
evaluation of different postpolymerization
methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2007;131:301.e16-22.
37.Yatabe M, Seki H, Shirasu N, Sone M. Effect of the reducing agent on the oxygeninhibited layer of the cross-linked reline
material. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:180-5.
38.International Standards Organization. ISO
1567:1999/Amd 1:2003. Dentistry-denture
base polymers. Amendment. Available at:
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/
ISOstore/store.html. Accessed on May 8,
2009.
39.Low IM. Effects of load and time on the
hardness of a viscoelastic polymer. Mater
Res Bull 1998;33:1753-8.
40.Polyzois GL, Zissis AJ, Yannikakis SA. The
effect of glutaraldehyde and microwave disinfection on some properties of acrylic denture resin. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:150-4.
41.Lai CP, Tsai MH, Chen M, Chang HS, Tay
HH. Morphology and properties of denture
acrylic resins cured by microwave energy
and conventional water bath. Dent Mater
2004;20:133-41.
42.Ma T, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Effects
of chemical disinfectants on the surface
characteristics and color of denture resins. J
Prosthet Dent 1997;77:197-204.
Corresponding author:
Dr Ana Lucia Machado
Rua Humait 1680
Araraquara, Sao Paulo
BRAZIL
CEP 14.801-903
Fax: 55 016 33016406
E-mail: cucci@foar.unesp.br
Copyright 2009 by the Editorial Council for
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

Machado et al