An In Vitro Investigation of Abrasion and Staining
of Dental Resins
D. J. PIPKO and M. EL-SADEEK
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA and Department of
Crown and Bridge, University of Cairo, Cairo, United Arab Republic
This investigation was undertaken to study
the abrasion and staining resistance of den-
ture base and veneering resins. The abrasion
of certain resins was tested with specific
commercial cleaning agents and dentifrices
by use of natural and synthetic bristle tooth-
brushes and denture brushes. Staining resis-
tance was tested by use of natural food
stains on the resins. Results indicate some
general guidelines for the clinical selection,
use, and maintenance of dental restorations
or appliances fabricated with these resins.
It is clinically observable that the surfaces
of some resin veneer crowns and denture
bases become abraded and dull, stain more
easily, and accumulate deposits under con-
ditions of normal patient use. Thus, these
restorations and prostheses become less hy-
gienic and aesthetic and more difficult for
the patient to clean.
The primary purpose of this study was
to determine which of the variables or com-
bination of variables (type of veneering and
denture base resins, cleaning agents, brushes,
or staining agents) contribute most to the
abrasion and staining of the resins. The sec-
ondary objective was to present some basic
guidelines to the dentist for his considera-
tion in the use of certain resins in the fabri-
cation of resin veneer crowns and denture
bases and in recommending home care in-
structions of these restorative appliances to
his patients.'
The influence of abrasive agents on acrylic
resins has been investigated,2 4 along with
evaluations of the type and character of
brushes.5-7 These investigations are signifi-
cant but are not related specifically to the
home cleaning of dentures or to oral hygiene
Received for publication January 15, 1971.
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
for patients with resin veneer restorations.
This study will attempt to relate the specific
variables involved in the routine home care
of dental restorative appliances fabricated
with certain resins.
The staining of dental resins has been
investigated to a limited degree,8'9 but these
investigations have not been related specifi-
cally to the usual clinical staining of resins.
An attempt to relate some of the clinical
variables involved in the staining of dental
resins. by simulating certain clinical environ-
mental factors as closely as possible is in-
cluded in this study.
Materials and Methods
An automatic mechanical toothbrushing
machine of basic design, as in other inves-
tigations,2 was used (Fig 1). Both the load
and brushing time were controlled with the
additional modifications to the basic ma-
chine design of reciprocal stroke counter,
automatic timing device, and free-floating
toothbrush holding device.
As in other investigations,6 a reflectom-
eter was used; it was adapted by combining
a Welch Densichron unit 11 * with a con-
stant diameter light source and a photoelec-
tric cell-reading galvanometer (Fig 2).
A resin sample holding device was devel-
oped for constant surface area placement of
the photoelectric cell probe in a constant re-
lationship to the sample (Fig 3).
A signature model colorimeter (Color-
Eye SN6190t) and abridged spectropho-
tometer were used to measure the color dif-
ferential between the control and stained
resin samples (Fig 4).
* W. M. Welch Manufacturing Co., Chicago, Ill.
t Instrument Development Laboratories of Koll-
morgen Corporation, Attleboro, Mass.
689
690 PIPKO AND IIL-SADhiESK
FIG 1. Automatic mechanical toothbrush-
ing (abrasion) testing machine.
Ten brand name veneering resins and
eight denture base resins were selected and
processed according to the respective manu-
facturers' standard directions (Table 1).
Five types of denture cleaning agents were
used for abrasion of the eight brand name
denture base resins; a common denture
brush modified by cutting the bristle ends
on a flat plane was used. (Table 2; Fig 5).
For abrasion testing of the veneering resins,
ten different brand name samples were stud-
ied with the use of synthetic and natural,
medium firm bristle toothbrushes (Fig 6).
The ten selected brand name veneering
resins were abrasion-tested with the ten se-
lected brand name dentifrices using the syn-
thetic (medium) bristle toothbrushes; four
of these dentifrices were selected for abra-
sion testing with all ten brand name veneer-
ing resins using natural (medium) bristle
toothbrushes (Table 3).
Four different types of staining agents
were used (Table 4).
Each of the 18 trade name types of ve-
FiG 2.-Reflectometer, combining a Welch
Densichron unit IL and a constant diameter
light source photoelectric cell.
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
J Dent Res May-June 1972
FIG 3.-Sample-holding device combining a
veneer microscope stage and photoelectric cell
probe for constant placement of samples.
peering or denture base resins was processed
in disk form, 35 mm in diameter and 8 mm
in thickness, according to the manufacturers'
directions (Fig 7). Ten samples each of the
18 brand name resins were processed for
use as controls and for testing abrasion with
the selected denture cleaning agents, denti-
frices, brushes, and staining agents. The sur-
face to be tested was ground flat and pol-
ished routinely to a high luster in the same
way the contoured surfaces of a veneer res-
toration or a denture base would be treated.
The resin samples selected for staining had
their polished surfaces sandblasted with
173.0 micrometer ([cm) quartz particles for
30 seconds at a distance of 2 inches with
40 pounds of air pressure.
The test resin samples were coded and
notched for orientation in the sample hold-
FIG 4.-Colorimeter.
 Vol 5 I No?. 3 RESIN ABRASION AND STAINING 691
TABLE 1
DENTAL RESINS SELECTED FOR STAINING AND
ABRASION
Denture Base
Veneering Resins Resins
(A) Pyroplast (K) Luxene
(B) Luxene (L) Unitek
(C) New Hue-lon (M) Vacalon
(D) Vacalon (N) Tissue-tone
(E) Biotone (0) Multi-pak
(F) Acrylan (P) Lucitone
(G) Meyerson (Q) Dura-flo
(H) Porcelax (R) S. S. White
(1) Unitek
(1) Diamond-D

ing device for reflectometer or calorimeter

readings. This sample orientation places the
test area in a constant relationship to the
reflectometer or calorimeter before and after
the abrasion or staining in regard to direc-
tion of brushing strokes or concentration of
inherent color within or on the surface of
the sample being tested.
Prior to the reflectometer readings of the
samples before abrasion, the denture base
resin samples were stored in tap water for
48 hours. The veneering resin samples were
stored in artificial saliva'0 for 48 hours. Be-
fore staining, all resin samples to be tested
were placed in artificial saliva and secured
to a reciprocal rocking machine. The rock-
ing machine allowed the samples to be im-
mersed in the artificial saliva for 30 seconds
and air-dried for 30 seconds. For all sam-
ples the room temperature was controlled
at 37 C. The resin samples that were kept
in the saliva had the saliva changed with
a new solution every 24 hours. After 48
hours, all the samples were removed from
the artificial saliva or tap water, rinsed Un-
der distilled water, and allowed to air-dry
for 30 minutes; the resin samples were read
FIG 5.-Denture brush unmodified and mod-
ified by cutting bristle ends on a flat plane.
with the colorimeter or reflectometer before
abrasion or staining. The pretest reflectom-
eter readings were taken before abrasion of
the denture base or veneering resin by the
selected cleaning agents, dentifrices, and
brushes as shown in Tables 5 to 7. For con-
venience only, the color difference readings
are shown in Table 8 and the pretest and
post-test readings are not shown.
After refiectometer pretest readings were
obtained and recorded, the abrasion test
resin samples were luted firmly into an in-
dividual slurry pan of the automatic brush-
ing machine by means of paraffin. Each
sample was placed for orientation of direc-
tion of the brush strokes. For use in the
abrasion of the denture base resins, a stan-
dard type denture brush was selected, sec-

TABLE 2
CLEANING AGENTS USED Wli DENTURE BASE
Ri SINS
Denture Base
Resins Cleaning Agents
(K) Luxene (I) Tap water
(L) Unitek (2) Kleenite solution-
(M) Vacalon 2.5 % dilution
(N) Tissue-tone (3) Soap solution-2.5 %
(0) Multi-pak dilution
(PI) Lucitone (4) Dentu-Creme solu- FIG 6.-Types of toothbrushes used, syn-
(Q) DuLra-flo tion-50 % dilution
(R) S. S. White (5) Fvernew solution- thetic medium bristle and natural medium
50% dilution bristle, with uniform number of tufts and rows
Note: Modified denture brushes. of bristle.

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
692 PIPKO AND EL-SADEEK J Dent Res May-June 1972
TABLE 3
ABRASION TESTING
Veneering Veneering
Resins Dentifrices* Resins Dentifricest
(A) Pyroplast (4) Gleem (A) Pyroplast (1) Colgate
(B) Luxene (5) Ultra-Brite (B) Luxene MFP
(C) New (7) Thermodent (C) New (2) Crest
Hue-Ion (8) Pycopay Hue-Ion (3) McCleans
(D) Vacalon (powder) (D) Vacalon (4) Gleem
(E) Biotone (E) Biotone (5) Ultra-Brite
(F) Acrylan (F) Acrylan (6) Sensodyne
(G) Meyerson (G) Meyerson (7) Thermodent
(H) Porcelax (H) Porcelax (8) Pycopay
(I) Unitek (I) Unitek (powder)
(I) Diamond-D (I) Diamond-D (9) Colgate
(powder)
(10) Amm-i-dent
(powder)
* Toothbrushes: Pycopay, natural (medium) bristles.
t Toothbrushes: Pycopay, synthetic (medium) bristles.

tioned, and modified by cutting the bristle
ends to an even flat plane by means of a
rotary disk (Fig 5).
The modified denture brushes or tooth-
brushes were cemented in a uniform direc-
tion to the clear acrylic carrier block of the
automatic brushing machine so that all the
bristles were in flat plane contact with the
flat surface of the sample to be abraded.
The carrier block with the mounted brushes
was modified to be free-floating so that the
brush bristles did not follow the same
abraded notches during the total brushing
time. Slurry wells were formed around the
wax-embedded testing samples to confine
the selected dentifrice or denture cleaner.
Each of the acrylic carrier blocks with the
mounted brush weighed 250 gm, which pro-
duced a uniform abrasive load on each sam-
ple. Each type of resin was abraded with
each type of dentifrice or cleaning agent
(Table 2) for 166 minutes with approxi-
mately 15,000 individual strokes. This time
calculation equaled about two and a half
years of normal patient brushing twice daily.
The total reciprocating stroke length across
the test sample was 46 or 23 mm in each
direction. The length of time each sample
was brushed, and the number of strokes,
was recorded by a counter and set timer.
At the termination of the test brushing time
with the individual dentifrice or cleaning
agent, the samples were removed from the
brushing machine, rinsed under tap water,
dried, and placed in the same position on
the reflectometer sample-holding device and
a reading was obtained (Tables 5, 6). New
test samples, which were read before abra-
sion, were positioned, the specific dentifrice
or cleaning agent was changed, and the test-
ing sequence was repeated for all brand
name resins and dentifrices or cleaning
agents.
After the abrasion testing of the resin
types and dentifrices with the synthetic
bristle toothbrushes was accomplished, the
toothbrushes were removed. New medium
natural bristle toothbrushes were then
mounted on the acrylic carrier blocks in the
same way synthetic brushes were mounted.
New test samples of all the brand name
veneering resins were abraded with four
brand name dentifrices shown in Table 7.
The selection of the four dentifrices for
testing with the natural (medium) bristle
toothbrushes was based on their relatively
greater abrasive action, which was calcu-
lated by the previous testing with the syn-
thetic bristle toothbrushes.
There has been some research in staining
of natural teeth, resins, and other materials
by artificial means,"1 and studies on meth-
TABLE 4
STAINING AGENTS
X-l1: Concentrated tomato paste-60% dilu-
tion
X-12: Concentrated grape juice-60% dilution
X-13: Concentrated coffee, tea infusion-60%
dilution
X-14: Concentrated orange juice-60% dilu-
tion
Note: Synthetic saliva used as diluents; X-10: control
resin samples.

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol 51 No. 3
FIG 7.-Ten coded resin samples of
brand name resin.
ods of stain removal.12-14 It is a consensus
that certain conditions are necessary for
staining; namely, the surface of the ma-
terial to be stained must possess a certain
degree of porosity and surface roughness
and an organic mucin and inorganic salt
matrix must be developed to increase the
tenacity of the stains, which should be in-
dicative of those found in the oral environ-
ment. On this basis, the test staining agents
were selected as listed in Table 4. They are
indicative of the types (color) predomi-
nantly found in dental resin staining from
food and beverages. Concentration was de-
termined arbitrarily for the 60% dilution
with the artificial saliva, as was the relative
amount of time the resin samples were pre-
soaked and stain-soaked. Four samples of
each of the 18 veneering and denture base
resins that were presoaked in artificial saliva
and air-dried were placed in each of the
respective stain solutions; in other words, 18
resins were used and four different selected
staining agents were used. The test samples
were kept in their respective staining solu-
tions for 120 hours under controlled room
temperature of 37 C on the automatic rock-
ing machine. The machine allowed the resin
samples to be submerged in the four differ-
ent staining agent solutions again for 30
seconds and out of the solution for 30 sec-
onds. The staining agent solutions were
changed every 24 hours with new solutions.
After 120 hours all the test-stained resin
samples were washed under distilled water
and air-dried. After air-drying for 24 hours,
the test-stained samples were read under the
calorimeter and a numerical reading was
recorded. The color readings for all control
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
NRSIN ABRASION AND STAINING 693
and stained samples were obtained by the
same operator.
Results
The reflectometer readings for the resin
abrasive investigation of eight types of den-
ture base resins tested with five different
cleaning agents are shown in Table 5. The
results of the reading for the ten brand
name veneering resins tested with ten brand
name dentifrices and synthetic medium bris-
tle toothbrushes, and the resins tested with
the four brand name dentifrices, and the
one natural medium bristle tooth brushes, are
shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Color difference readings5 obtained for
all the types of resin stained samples are
compared with each of their respective resin
sample standards in Table 8. All readings
were cross checked for errors and were
listed as recorded.
The graphic representation of the results
of this investigation as recorded by means
of the reflectometer and colorimeter are
shown in (Figs 8-12).
Discussion
The comparative summation of the pre-
test and post-test differences in reflectom-
eter readings can be used to develop an
order of abrasiveness relative to each type
of resin, denture base or veneering. The
abrasiveness of the denture cleaning agents
or dentifrices also can be placed on a scale;
they can be placed in perspective relative to
the type of toothbrush used, either natural
or synthetic bristle. The relative scales of
denture base resin abrasion resistance, den-
ture cleaning agent abrasiveness, and a com-
parative order scale combining both are
shown in Tables 9 to 11. These results indi-
cate that certain denture base resins are more
or less resistant to abrasion of a cleaning
agent, and certain cleaning agents are more
abrasive than others. In combining the rela-
tive scales of resin abrasion resistance with
the scale of abrasiveness of certain cleaning
agents, a matching base scale of resin to
cleaning agent can be compiled for selection
in clinical use.
From the sum of the differences in re-
flectometer readings for the abrasion testing
of veneering resins with natural or synthetic
(medium) bristle toothbrushes, relative
scales of abrasion resistance were compiled
694 PIPKO AND EL-SADEEK J Dent Res May-June 1972
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF ABRASION TESTING
Reftectometer
Readings
Denture Base Resin Cleaning Agents Pre* Post Diff
Luxene (K) (1) Tap water 26.0 23.0 3.0
(2) Kleenite solution 26.0 23.0 3.0
(3) Soap solution 26.0 23.0 3.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 25.0 21.0 4.0
(5) Evernew solution 23.5 21.0 2.5
Unitek (L) (1) Tap water 30.5 28.0 2.5
(2) Kleenite solution 30.0 27.0 3.0
(3) Soap solution 30.0 28.0 2.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 30.5 27.0 3.5
(5) Evernew solution 25.0 23.0 2.0
Vacalon (M) (1) Tap water 32.0 27.0 5.0
(2) Kleenite solution 37.5 32.5 5.0
(3) Soap solution 30.0 25.0 5.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 31.5 23.0 8.5
(5) Evernew solution 37.0 32.0 5.0
Tissue-tone (N) (1) Tap water 28.0 27.0 1.0
(2) Kleenite solution 28.5 27.0 1.5
(3) Soap solution 26.0 25.0 1.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 29.5 26.0 3.5
(5) Evernew solution 28.0 26.0 2.0
Multi-pak (0) (1) Tap water 24.0 23.0 1.0
(2) Kleenite solution 25.0 23.0 2.0
(3) Soap solution 24.5 23.0 1.5
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 25.5 23.0 2.5
(5) Evernew solution 24.0 22.0 2.0
Lucitone (P) (1) Tap water 30.0 28.0 2.0
(2) Kleenite solution 30.0 29.0 1.0
(3) Soap solution 31.0 30.0 1.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 33.0 29.0 4.0
(5) Evernew solution 30.0 28.0 2.0
Dura-flo (Q) (1) Tap water 27.0 26.5 0.5
(2) Kleenite solution 27.5 26.0 1.5
(3) Soap solution 26.0 25.0 1.0
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 25.5 23.0 2.5
(5) Evernew solution 25.0 23.0 2.0
S. S. White (R) (1) Tap water 34.0 32.0 2.0
(2) Kleenite solution 29.0 28.0 1.0
(3) Soap solution 31.5 31.0 0.5
(4) Dentu-Creme solution 31.0 27.5 3.5
(5) Evernew solution 31.0 29.5 1.5
* Pre, pretest; post, post-test; diff, difference.

for veneering resins and dentifrices depend-
ing on the type of tooth brush used (Tables
12, 13). Certain resins were more resistant
to abrasion independent of the type of tooth-
brush used in testing. Others were signifi-
cantly less resistant to abrasion when tested
with the synthetic bristle toothbrushes. A
relative scale of abrasiveness of dentifrices
was determined for use with synthetic bristle
toothbrushes on selected veneering resins.
Even when some of these dentifrices were
selected to be tested with the natural bristle
toothbrushes on the same veneering resins,
they were relatively abrasive on a scale
comparable to their use with the synthetic
bristle toothbrushes.
In combining the relative scales of den-
tifrice abrasion with both the natural or
synthetic bristle toothbrushes on the veneer-
ing resins tested, a pattern develops for an
overall order of these dentifrices and ve-
neering resins for abrasive resistance (Ta-
ble 14). An interesting relative scale of
abrasiveness of the tested dentifrice devel-
ops when the individual scales of both nat-
ural and synthetic veneering resins are com-
bined; this is true for a combination of the
individual scales for certain selected denti-

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 Or W) O Oa)O
DC)0800
O D
Cm m
CD
CDO C
C0 C0

t-\Cr-t - %C\ C I m 'Io~

u tt W) W) 1r) V-)

0 OCC
O O C CD~ 0 O n C DC O C C C%

02 r
3 34 30 a N
ct3 30 -4 02
K:
nQ
~ Cv
) a

02~ ~u>_ c)
~ ) 5~=o
0 ~~~~~~~~7
to
U -4 =
=
o
0
C) s--4
== oX 0>,
c >0
c = o 0
>,
cc U;o
Q= =
0

oom
V~~~~~~~~~~0
tN° zh t00 N t0O0\z t-,00 0\z

F ~~ ~ ~~--
_ _ 60
_ cl
___ __ _i '- -C;
_ _

Ev~
~ ~~~~_ C C) _
C) C)i)_nC

C's \0 ,C \4 %C %C 0D\c00c -I- m e

t C)C D DC )CDC )C

t- t-rt- t- t ,C c o, \c \, -t -t -t -t - I- I- 't o-
Ct C

0 CZ 0 "

.4 Q6 0 m b6o} U1tC'd<5t°
f - <s°

UsUttU U UU C- UU U Uz 0
Y~~~~~~~~~~~~~- IO- ll e-O;- --
ll O;-1 11- -11 O;1
1-
--

QbUS~nVU2O;VU>O;UV2O;VU2r;
_>
En > > m ~ s e o mm m m >
__C_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.a;~~~~~~~( - 4 -

>C Q =
-~~~~~~~
695

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 el;a 0C
-lC -el cel C r~Ci el;i el;f1fjJC f

C)00000 000
) 0 O )000
)C 00'CD OO O)000

)o0 C
a~C )c )C
) )c C) DW C~ ) C) C)

w o u~~
o 0 oCto'O
"0 "0 ~~~~~-N"00 -0
t-o^ ow O tl}t_ z:
0"O0 >

c ~ c "0 "0 0 >n

"0
n0 "0

0 >
"0 0 C .;-
--I a
"0 cj =°t SS

0 C O >, 0 0
u
0 >-, °

c).O>.
ao;C
c o o° ° CD O x
kn O nx 20
DC E )k

.4 0l~00 00 9ct00 0.1() t 000 Z0 "Ot 0000N9( trlrao

<

C- OO'"1-Cef
os rc
sooo <soo~-~-oo toooooa~

t
cC~~~0~~0 ~~Oco~~t-. roCc
0 o o
.o " Crc q tn
o6

PaP
L) nO O
ooooo. )OenOnO
5~~~~~~c ~
P4 Wooooo ~ c e c O
V oQao ooom oo
,= 0.000
-4 0 00 0000.0 OOCO 0o um
o'udst06
cv ooooo um
0 -{08 .J)£
CC -a CR )~C

as-C E cd a

0
* oo>
0000
m1w 0.P00....0....
t o 00000
e
v.-tttt
C) m tt t< n u
a0

v v v v
v~~~P

"0~~~

r
~CIO CZ

696

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol 51 No. 3 RESIN ABRASION AND STAINING 697
TABLE 7
RESULTS OF ABRASION TESTING
Reflectometer Readings
Veneering Resins Dentifrices Pre* Post Diff
Pyroplast (A) (4) Gleem 67.0 62.5 4.5
(5) Ultra-Brite 68.0 62.0 6.0
(7) Thermodent 63.0 61.0 2.0
(8) Pycopay (powder) 65.0 61.5 3.5
Luxene (B) (4) Gleem 56.0 55.0 1.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 57.0 56.0 1.0
(7) Thermodent 55.5 55.0 0.5
(8) Pycopay (powder) 55.5 54.5 1.0
New Hue-Ion (C) (4) Gleem 49.0 46.0 3.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 46.5 46.0 0.5
(7) Thermodent 44.5 44.0 0.5
(8) Pycopay (powder) 49.5 48.0 1.5
Vacalon (D) (4) Gleem 47.0 46.0 1.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 48.0 47.0 1.0
(7) Thermodent 48.5 47.0 1.5
(8) Pycopay (powder) 49.0 47.0 2.0
Biotone (E) (4) Gleem 42.0 41.0 1.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 44.0 42.0 2.0
(7) Thermodent 41.0 40.0 1.0
(8) Pycopay (powder) 41.0 40.0 1.0
Acrylan (F) (4) Gleem 56.0 56.0 0.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 57.0 56.0 1.0
(7) Thermodent 57.5 57.0 0.5
(8) Pycopay (powder) 55.5 55.5 0.0
Meyerson (G) (4) Gleem 39.5 38.0 1.5
(5) Ultra-Brite 39.0 38.0 1.0
(7) Thermodent 39.5 39.0 0.5
(8) Pycopay (powder) 38.5 37.0 1.5
Porcelax (H) (4) Gleem 55.0 51.0 4.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 53.0 51.0 2.0
(7) Thermodent 51.0 49.0 2.0
(8) Pycopay (powder) 51.5 50.0 1.5
Unitek (I) (4) Gleem 36.0 35.0 1.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 35.5 34.0 1.5
(7) Thermodent 35.5 35.0 1.0
(8) Pycopay (powder) 35.5 34.5 1.0
Diamond-D (J) (4) Gleem 53.0 50.0 3.0
(5) Ultra-Brite 54.0 52.0 2.0
(7) Thermodent 52.0 51.0 1.0
(8) Pycopay (powder) 53.0 51.5 1.5
Note: Natural, medium bristle toothbrushes.
* Pre, pretest; post, post-test, diff, difference.

frices with both natural and synthetic bristle
toothbrushes for all of the veneering resins
tested (Tables 15, 16).
The results of abrasion testing of denture
base and veneering resins with their respec-
tive cleaning agents or dentifrices, and with
types of toothbrushes, must be considered
in relation to the staining of these resins to
indicate any clinical applications or recom-
mendations. It is shown in Tables 17 to 19
that certain staining agents are more intense
than others and that an order of the suscep-
tibility of certain resins to these stains can
be developed with either denture base or
veneering resins.
The results of this investigation indicate,
in general, that certain denture base resins
are more resistant to abrasion than others.
In turn, certain cleaning agents are more
abrasive than others. Certain veneering res-
ins are more or less resistant to abrasion
depending on the relative abrasiveness of
the dentifrice used in conjunction with a
synthetic or a natural bristle toothbrush. All
of these facts can be modified depending on
the staining susceptibility of the resin (den-

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 TABLE 8
RESULTS OF STAINED RESIN SAMPLE AND STANDARD
COLOR DIFFERENCE READINGS
Veneering Resin Denture Base Resin
Samples AE* Samples AE
Pyroplast (standard) (A) Luxene (standard) (K)
A-10 . . . K-10 .

A-l 3.1 K-lJ 5.0

A-12 14.2 K-12 13.1
A-13 17.2 K-13 11.3
A-14 0.8 K-14 2.6
Luxene (standard) (B) Unitek (standard) (L)
B-10 . L-10
B-Jl 1.9 L-Jl 4.2
B-12 15.0 L-12 4.0
B-13 19.7 L-13 9.3
B-14 6.9 L-14 2.0
New Hue-Ion (standard) (C) Vacalon (standard) (M)
C-10 M-10 '.
C-il 2.2 M-lI 4.8
C-12 11.2 M-12 13.5
C-13 17.8 M-13 9.8
C-14 2.6 M-14 2.9
Vacalon (standard) (D) Tissue-tone (standard) (N)
D-10 N-10
D-JJ
.

2.7
. .

N-11 i..6.
2.6
D-12 6.6 N-12 15.7
D-13 17.2 N-13 16.5
D-14 2.7 N-14 3.4
Biotone (standard) (E) Multi-pak: (standard) (0)
E-10 0-10 '. .

E-JJ 1.8 0-11 4.1

E-12 12.5 0-12 13.9
E-13 13.8 0-13 10.1
E-14 3.4 0-14 3.4
Acrylan (standard) (F) Lucitone (standard) (P)
F-10 ... P-10
F-JJ 7.1 P-il 3.7
F-12 20.3 P-12 4.3
F-13 7.3 P-13 11.1
F-14 8.3 P-14 2.5
Meyerson (standard) (G) Dura-flo (standard) (Q)
G-10 ... Q-10 . . .

G-JJ 1.0 Q-ii 4.0

G-12 11.4 Q-12 15.5
G-13 18.6 Q-13 20.4
G-14 0.9 Q-14 7.6
Porcelax (standard) (H) S. S. Whi (standard) (R)
H-10 ... R-10 .

H-JJ 1.8 R-1l 2.7

H-12 16.2 R-12 8.3
H-13 28.8 R-13 13.3
H-14 2.1 R-14 27.8
Unitek (standard) (1)
I-J0 '.6.9
.9.
I-JJ
I-12 16.1
I-13 13.8
I-14 6.9
Diamond-D (standard) (J)
J-10 . . .

J-JJ 1.7
J-12 21.0
J-13 9.5
J-14 1.8
* AE, total color difference in MacAdam units.
698

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol 51 No. 3 RESIN ABRASION AND STAINING 699
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
t0 31

-'
28
z
27
N 26
r.i 25

23
22
21
20
11 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5'1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

Luxene Unitek Vacalon Tissue-tone Multi-pink Lucitone Dura-flo S.S.White

DENTURE WSE RESIN SM1WUM
FIG 8.-Results relating brand names of denture base resins to cleaning agents tested.

ture base or veneering type), the type of dations, for the dentist in his use of certain
stain used, and the intensity of staining denture base or veneering resins. In turn,
ability. he can make recommendations to patients
To fulfill the aim of this investigation, for home care of prosthodontic appliances'66
certain facts can be indicated as recommen- or restorations. The selection of the type of

I~ol~e Cest
2o~
IMcCleans
'4
IUltra-Brite' ensodyne 'Thermodent
7
'Pyoa 'Colgate
9y
'Acmmi-dent
y10

DENTRIFICES

FIG 9.-Results of test group with ten brand name veneering resins with ten dentifrices,
synthetic medium bristle toothbrushes.

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 I itvi
-

66- VENEERING
RESIN
64-
I
- f SAMPLES
I
62-
, / - 1I

60-
t' 4- - -
- Pyroplast A

58-

56-

54-

u) 52- zDiamond-D J
:z-4
a
E

a,-
d
m
Ri 48--
50- I

-in ",Porcelax

New Hue-lon C
H

-Vacalon D

4-- Biotone E
u

x 38-
42- - Meyerson G
36-
34- .............. .. *
.B . . * * .*
... ., _Unitek I

K a
1---b 8
4
Gleem Ultra Brite Therm.'dent -i Pycopay(powder)l
DENTRIFICES

FIG 10.-Results of test group with ten brand name veneering resins with four dentifrices,
natural medium bristle toothbrushes.

30-
28-

26-
24-

22-

20-

18-

A1j4I!
12i

I
FIG 11. Color difference chalulations fQr stained veneering resin samples.
700

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 I I' lI I
FIG 12.-Color difference calculations for stained denture base resin samples.

TABLE 10
TABLE 9 RELATIVE SCALE OF DENTURE
RELATIVE SCALE OF RESIN ABRASION CLEANER ABRASION
Order Type of Resin Order Type of Cleaner
Least resistant 1 (M) Vacalon Most abrasive 1 (4) Dentu-Creme
2 (K) Luxene solution
3 (L) Unitek 2 (2) Kleenite
4 (P) Lucitone solution
5-6 (N) Tissue-tone, 3 (5) Evernew
(N) Multi-pak solution
7 (R) S. S. White (1) Tap water
Most resistant 8 (Q) Dura-flo Least abrasive 5 (3) Soap
solution

TABLE 1 1
COMPARATIVE ABRASIVE SCALE OF RESIN TO CLEANER
Denture Cleaner Resin Abrasive
Order Abrasiveness Resistance
Most 8 (4) Dentu-Creme solution (Q) Dura-flo
7 (2) Kleenite solution (R) S. S. White
5-6 (5) Evernew solution (N) Tissue-tone-Multi-pak
4 (5) Evernew solution (P) Lucitone
3 (1) Tap water (L) Unitek
2 (1) Tap water (K) Luxene
Least 1 (3) Soap solution (M) Vacalon
701

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
 TABLE 12
RELATIVE SCALE OF VENEERING RESIN
ABRASION
Order Type of Resin
Synthetic (medium) bristle toothbrush
Least resistant 1 (A ) Pyroplast
2 (H) Porcelax, (I) TABLE 13
Diamond-D RELATIVE SCALE OF DENTIFRICE ABRASION
3 (C) New Huelon,
(E) Biotone Order Type of Dentifrice
4 (G) Meyerson Synthetic (medium) bristle toothbrush
5 (1) Unitek Most abrasive 1 (3) McCleans
6 (F) Acrylan 2 (4) Gleem
7 (D) Vacalon 3 (1) Colgate MFP
Most resistant 8 (B) Luxene 4 (5) Ultra-Brite
5 (2) Crest, (8) Pyco-
Natural (medium) bristle toothbrush pay (powder)
Least resistant 1 (A) Pyroplast 6 (6) Sensodyne
2 (H) Porcelax 7 (7) Thermodent
8 (9) Colgate (powder)
3 (1) Diamond-D Least abrasive 9 (10) Amm-i-dent
4 (C) New Huelon, (powder)
(D) Vacalon Natural (medium) bristle toothbrush
5 (E) Biotone Most abrasive 1 (4) Gleem
6 (G) Myerson, (I) 2 (5) Ultra-Brite
Unitek 3 (8) Pycopay
7 (B) Luxene (powder)
Most resistant 8 (F) Acrylan Least abrasive 4 (7) Thermodent

TABLE 14
COMPARATIVE ABRASIVE SCALE OF VENEERING RESIN TO DENTIFRICE
Veneering Resin Abrasive
Order Dentifrice Abrasiveness Resistance
Synthetic (medium) bristle toothbrush
Most 8 (3) McCleans, (4) Gleem (B) Luxene
7 (1) Colgate MFP (D) Vacalon
6 (5) Ultra-Brite (E) Acrylan
5 (2) Crest, (8) Pycopay (I) Unitek
(powder)
4 (6) Sensodyne (G) Meyerson
3 (7) Thermodent (C) New Huelon, (E) Bio-
tone
2 (9) Colgate (powder) (H) Porcelax, (I) Diamond-
D
Least 1 (10) Amm-i-dent (powder) (A) Pyroplast
Natural (medium) bristle toothbrush
Most 8 (4) Gleem (E) Acrylan
7 (4) Gleem, (5) Ultra-Brite (B) Luxene
6 (5) Ultra-Brite (G) Meyerson, (I) Unitek
5 (5) Ultra-Brite, (8) Pyco-
pay (powder) (E) Biotone
4 (8) Pycopay (powder)
(5) Ultra-Brite (C) New Huelon, (D) Vaca-
lon
3 (8) Pycopay (powder) (I) Diamond-D
2 (7) Thermodent, (8) Pyco- (H) Porcelax
pay (powder)
Least 1 (7) Thermodent (A) Pyroplast
702

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Vol 51 No. 3
denture base or veneering resin is the pre-
rogative of the dentist, and can be deter-
mined for each specific patient situation.
This selection can be based on an insight
into the dietary habits (foods or drink that
have heavy organic stains), smoking, and
routine home care or oral hygiene care
habits. This staining susceptibility depends
on the amount and rate of stain and ability
of the patient to remove it from the restor-
ative appliances. With these background
facts and with a general insight into the
relative abrasive resistance of certain den-
ture base or veneering resins, the dentist
can select and prescribe a specific type resin
for use in the fabrication of restorations or
prosthodontic appliances for the individual
patient. With this knowledge, the dentist
can, by understanding the relative scale of
abrasion of certain cleaning agents, denti-
TABLE 15
RELATIVE SCALE OF DENTIFRICE ABRASION
Order Type of Dentifrices
Most
abrasive 1 (4) Gleem, (3), McCleans
2 (5) Ultra-Brite, (8) Pycopay
(powder)
3 (1) Colgate MFP, (2) Crest
4 (6) Sensodyne, (9) Colgate
(powder)
Least
abrasive 5 (7) Thermodent, (10) Amm-
i-dent (powder)
Note: Synthetic and natural (medium) bristle tooth-
brushes. Veneering resins: Pyroplast, Luxene, New Hue-
Ion, Vacalon, Biotone, Acrylan, Meyerson, Porcelax,
Unitek, and Diamond-D.
RESIN ABRASION AND STAINING 703
frices,14 denture brushes,4 and types of
toothbrushes, recommend a knowledgeable
regime of patient home care. And he can
recommend routine recall for continual
monitoring and office maintenance.
The following are theoretical examples of
total patient planning and maintenance of
dental appliances using some of the types
of resins tested. With an understanding of
the patient's specific oral situation regarding
periodontal health, diet, smoking, food-
beverage staining, and tooth sensitivity, the
dentist can recommend a specific regime of
home care for resin restorations. The desen-
sitizing dentifrices can be used with either
the natural or synthetic medium bristle
toothbrushes with minimal resin abrasion.
In circumstances where the patient is prone
toward moderate to severe food-beverage
or smoking stains, it is thought best to se-
lect a resin that is maximal in abrasive re-
sistance. Here also, the use of a more abra-
sive type of dentifrice can be recommended.
TABLE 17
RELATIVE SCALE OF INTENSITY OF STAINING
Order Type of Stains
Most
intense 1 X-13: concentrated coffee-
tea infusion solution
2 X-12: concentrated grape
juice solution
3 X-l1: concentrated tomato
paste solution
Least
intense 4 X-14: concentrated orange
juice solution

TABLE 16
RELATIVE SCALE OF VENEERING RESIN TABLE 18
ABRASION RELATIVE SCALE OF DENTURE BASE RESIN
Order Type of Resin
STAINING
Least resistant Type of Denture Base
(A) Pyroplast
1 Order Resin
(H) Porcelax
2
Most
(1) Diamond-D
3
susceptible 1 (R) S. S. White
(G) Meyerson
4
2 (Q) Dura-flo
5 (D) Vacalon, (E) Biotone
6 (C) New Hue-lon, (F) Ac- 3 (N) Tissue-tone
rylan 4 (K) Luxene
7 (I) Unitek 5 (0) Multi-pak, (M) Vac-
Most resistant 8 (B) Luxene alon
Note: Synthetic and natural (medium) bristle tooth-
6 (P) Lucitone
brushes. Dentifrices: Gleem, Ultra-Brite, Thermodent, Least
and Pycopay (powder). susceptible 7 (L) Unitek

Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
704 PIPKO AND EL-SADEEK
TABLE 19
RELATIVE SCALE OF VENEERING RESIN
Type of Veneering
Order Resin
Most
susceptible 1 (H) Porcelax
2 (1) Unitek, (F) Acrylan
3 (B) Luxene
4 (A) Pyroplast
5 (1) Diamond-D, (C) New
Hue-Ion
6 (G) Meyerson, (E) Biotone
Least
susceptible 7 (D) Vacalon
Conclusions
The following conclusions and recom-
mendations are of general and clinical sig-
nificance to dentists and their patients.
(1) It is imperative that the contoured
surfaces of the denture or veneer restora-
tion(s) be as highly polished as mechani-
cally possible before initial insertion. These
surfaces should be repolished periodically
at the time of routine recall maintenance
examination or oral hygiene dental prophy-
laxis. This is necessary to restore a smoother
surface to the resin. The smoother the sur-
face of the resin, the more resistant it is to
abrasion in normal patient service. In turn,
with normal patient care, the resin surface
may become dull, more unhygienic, and
therefore abraded more by more repeated
cleaning by the patient to remove the stain.
(2) The dentist must select the type of
denture base or veneering resin specifically
for the patient, relative to abrasion-resistant
properties of the specific resin as related to
its use. The patient's habits must be consid-
ered for the knowledgeable recommenda-
tion of a specific cleaning agent or denti-
frice and its use with a specified brush type.
Particular patient individualization should
include type of resin, patient habits, type
of cleaning agent, type of brush, and rou-
tine maintenance recall. This combination
is of primary importance in consideration
of the overall longevity of the proposed and
fabricated restorations.
(3) The dentist's recommendation to the
patient concerning the use of a denture
cleaning agent or specific dentifrice must
be based on individual total overall factual
information. In general, the most abrasive
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
J Dent Res May-June 1972
denture cleaning pastes should not be rec-
ommended, except in selected situations
where all fabrication, resin (most abrasion
resistant) selection, and home care is con-
trolled. The routine use of a bath type clean-
ing agent before the mechanical cleaning of
dentures with soap and a dilute water solu-
tion of the bath cleaner, with a certain type
brush design, will produce the least abrasion
of contoured surfaces.
(4) The specific selection and recommen-
dation of a dentifrice for the individual pa-
tient for use on a resin-veneered restoration
also must be planned after consideration of
the many factors involved. It appears that
the powder type dentifrices are not as abra-
sive as some of the paste types, but are more
abrasive than the therapeutic, sensitivity-
lessening dentifrices of the past.
(5) Denture cleaning brushes are more
abrasive when the bristles are rigid and of
uneven length4; the dentist generally can
recommend that the patient use a denture
brush with even lengthed, more flexible,
round-end bristles. In general, from the re-
sults of this study and the types of tooth-
brushes used, we concluded that the medium
natural bristle toothbrushes were less abra-
sive to all the veneering resins tested than
the medium synthetic bristle toothbrushes
of the same design. With the current intro-
duction of bristle ends for the synthetic
bristle toothbrushes (multitufted or round
end), it may be that both synthetic and
natural bristle toothbrushes are comparable
in production of minimal abrasion. From
the present results, it seems that the best
combination for the least abrasion of ve-
neering resins is the use of a soft or medium
natural bristle toothbrush in conjunction
with a desensitizing or powder dentifrice.
(6) These conclusions cannot be defini-
tive recommendations regarding the use or
non-use of certain types of denture base
resins, veneering resins, cleaning agents,
dentifrices, or brushes, but are a guide to
the relative matching of all factors con-
cerned. At best, in vitro studies can only
allude to clinical findings and modifications.
These guidelines are not and cannot be
made rigid, but must be flexible and mean-
ingful to and for both the dentist and his
patient.
This investigation suggests some guide-
lines. It is by no means all inclusive re-
garding the multitude of denture base or
Vol 51 No. 3
veneering resins, denture brushes, tooth-
brushes, cleaning agents, dentifrices, or
typical stains available or normally encoun-
tered. It is one contribution toward further
investigation of the clinical problems in-
volved in the use of dental resins and in
the maintenance of longevity.
More work along these lines is needed
for clinical interpretive use and can be
accomplished by manufacturers and stan-
dard testing laboratories.'7 Manufacturers
constantly are trying to improve their
products, and hopefully will continue to
do so. The results of this study may be dis-
proved by the ever-increasing changes and
improvements being made in dental prod-
ucts; this will be positive progress.
References
1. SKINNER, W.W., and PHILLIPS, R.W.: The
Science of Dental Materials, 6th ed, Phila-
delphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1967,
p 211.
2. SEXTON, J.C., and PHILLIPS, R.W.: Studies
on the Effects of Abrasives on Acrylic
Resins, J Prosthet Dent 1:454, 1951.
3. VIEIRA, D.F., and PHILLIPS, R.W.: Influ-
ence of Certain Variables on the Abrasion
of Acrylic Resin Veneering Materials, J
Prosthet Dent 12:720-731, 1962.
4. SWARTZ, M.L., and PHILLIPS, R.W.: Cleans-
ing, Polishing and Abrasion Techniques
(In Vitro), Ann NY Acad Sci 153:120-
136, 1968.
5. BJoRN, H., and LINDHE, J.: Abrasion of
Dentin by Tooth Brush and Dentifrice,
Odontol Rev 14:17-27, 1966.
6. PHILLIPS, R.W., and SWARTZ, M.L.: Ef-
fects of Diameter of Nylon Bristles on
Enamel Surfaces, JADA 47:20-26, 1953.
7. HINE, M.K.; WACHTLE, C.; and FOSDICK,
Downloaded from jdr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
RESIN ABRASION AND STAINING 705
L.S.: Some Observations on the Cleans-
ing Effect of Nylon and Natural Bristles
Tooth Brushes, J Periodontol 25:183-188,
1954.
8. KAFALIAS, M.C.; SWARTZ, M.S.; and PHIL-
LIPS, R.W.: Physical Properties of Se-
lected Dental Resins, Part I, J Prosthet
Dent 13:1091-1092, 1963.
9. BUONOCORE, M.G.; MATSUI, A.; and YAN-
RAKI, M.: Abrasion of Restorative Ma-
terials, NY State Dent J 32:395-400, 1966.
10. DRAus, F., and MIKLOS, F.: Personal
communication. (Artificial saliva used was
formulated by Drs. Draus and Miklos,
Department of Dental Biochemistry, Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, School of Dental
Medicine.)
11. SWARTZ, M.L., and PHILLIPS, R.W.: Cleans-
ing, Polishing, and Abrasion Techniques
(In Vitro), Ann NY Acad Sci 153:131-
133, 1968.
12. NEILL, D.J.: Investigations of Materials
and Methods Used for Cleaning Dentures,
Dental Quintessence 3:59, 1970.
13. MUHLER, J.C.; STOOKEY, G.K.; and HAS-
SELL, T.M.: The Development and Evalu-
ation of an Improved Denture Cleaning
and Polishing Paste, J Indiana Dent Assoc,
January, 1969.
14. ROBINSON, H.B.G.: Individualizing Denti-
frices; The Dentist's Responsibility, JADA
79:633-636, 1969.
15. SMITH, D.L., and BURNETT, A.P.: Per-
sonal communication. (All colorimeter
date obtained through the courtesy of Mr.
Smith, Director of Research and Develop-
ment and Mr. Burnett, the J. M. Ney
Company, Bloomfield, Connecticut.)
16. SHARRY, J.J.: Complete Denture Prostho-
dontics, 2nd ed, New York; McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1968, p 280.
17. Report of the Council on Dental Thera-
peutics: Abrasivity of Cement Dentifrices,
JADA 81:1177-1181, 1970.