Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 87, Issue 2 , Pages 153-157, February 2002

The effect of two different coatings on the surface integrity and softness of a tissue conditioner☆☆★★♢♢

Eastman Dental Center, University of Rochester, Rochester; and College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, N.Y

Abstract 

Statement of Problem. When they are used to treat inflamed, irritated, or distorted tissues or in implant therapy, tissue conditioners are required to function over relatively long time periods. Most presently available materials have a short life span (3 to 4 days). Purpose. This study evaluated the effects of 2 different coatings on the surface integrity and softness of a tissue conditioner over a 4-week period. Material and Methods. Ten subjects with a complete maxillary denture and a functioning mandibular dentition were included in the study. Each maxillary denture had 3 troughs filled with a tissue conditioner (Coe Comfort). One trough was coated with Monopoly and one with Permaseal; the third trough was left uncoated (control). The specimens were tested at insertion and at 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks postinsertion for softness with a durometer and for surface integrity with a scanning electron microscope. Statistical differences were determined with analysis of variance (P<.05). Results. At the end of 4 weeks, the mean and standard deviation of softness on the ASTM scale was 85.1 (4.2) for the control, 81.6 (3.9) for Monopoly, and 77.9 (5.0) for Permaseal. The difference between the control and Permaseal was significant (P<.0042). Qualitatively, SEM analysis indicated that the control deteriorated by the end of the first week, whereas both Monopoly and Permaseal coatings remained intact for up to 2 weeks. All groups showed some conditioner deterioration by 4 weeks. The tissues under the denture-bearing areas remained healthy during the study period. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the application of Permaseal or Monopoly coatings significantly reduced the loss of tissue conditioner softness. Permaseal-coated conditioner remained the softest over the length of the study. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:153-7.)

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was partially supported by GC America Inc (Allsip, Ill.).

☆☆ aAssociate Professor, Chief of the Division of General Dentistry, Director of the Advanced Education in General Dentistry Program, University of Rochester Eastman Dental Center.

 bStaff Dentist, Crusader Clinic, Rockford, Ill.

★★ cAssistant Clinical Instructor, Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University College of Dentistry.

 dAssistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, University of Rochester Eastman Dental Center; and Assistant Professor, Department of Community and Preventative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center.

♢♢ Reprint requests to: Dr Hans S. Malmström, University of Rochester Eastman Dental Center, 625 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14620-2989, Fax: (716)273-1235, E-mail: hans_malmstrom@urmc.rochester.edu

PII: S0022-3913(02)43114-9

doi:10.1067/mpr.2002.121407

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 87, Issue 2 , Pages 153-157, February 2002