Universidade de São Paulo
Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual - BDPI
Departamento de Prótese - FOB/BAP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FOB/BAP
2012
Peel bond strength of resilient liner modified
by the addition of antimicrobial agents to
denture base acrylic resin
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ORAL SCIENCE, BAURU, v. 20, n. 6, pp. 607-612, NOV-DEC, 2012
http://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/41324
Downloaded from: Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual - BDPI, Universidade de São Paulo
www.scielo.br/jaos
Peel bond strength of resilient liner modified by
the addition of antimicrobial agents to denture
base acrylic resin
Cristiane S. ALCÂNTARA 1, Allana F.C. de MACÊDO1, Bruno C.V. GURGEL2, Janaina H. JORGE3, Karin H.
NEPPELENBROEK4, Vanessa M. URBAN5
1- DDS, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Center of Superior Studies of Maceió - CESMAC, Maceió, AL, Brazil.
2- DDS, MSc, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN, Natal, RN, Brazil.
3- DDS, MSc, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Araraquara Dental School, Univ. Estadual Paulista - UNESP,
Araraquara, SP, Brazil.
4- DDS, MSc, PhD, Assistant Professor, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo - USP, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
5- DDS, MSc, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, Ponta Grossa State University - UEPG, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
Corresponding address: Vanessa Migliorini Urban - Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa - Departamento de Odontologia - Campus de Uvaranas - Av.
General Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748, 84030-900 - Ponta Grossa - PR - Brazil - Phone: 55-42-3220 3106 - e-mail:
[email protected]
Received: December 3, 2010 - Modification: August 14, 2011 - Accepted: September 18, 2011
ABSTRACT
I
n order to prolong the clinical longevity of resilient denture relining materials and reduce
plaque accumulation, incorporation of antimicrobial agents into these materials has been
proposed. However, this addition may affect their properties. Objective: This study evaluated
the effect of the addition of antimicrobial agents into one soft liner (Soft Confort, Dencril)
on its peel bond strength to one denture base (QC 20, Dentsply). Material and Methods:
Acrylic specimens (n=9) were made (75x10x3 mm) and stored in distilled water at 37°C
for 48 h. The drug powder concentrations (nystatin 500,000U - G2; nystatin 1,000,000U
- G3; miconazole 125 mg - G4; miconazole 250 mg - G5; ketoconazole 100 mg - G6;
ketoconazole 200 mg - G7; chlorhexidine diacetate 5% - G8; and 10% chlorhexidine
diacetate - G9) were blended with the soft liner powder before the addition of the soft
liner liquid. A group (G1) without any drug incorporation was used as control. Specimens
(n=9) (75x10x6 mm) were plasticized according to the manufacturers’ instructions and
stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. Relined specimens were then submitted to a
180-degree peel test at a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by
analysis of variance (α=0.05) and the failure modes were visually classified. Results: No
significant difference was found among experimental groups (p=0.148). Cohesive failure
located within the resilient material was predominantly observed in all tested groups.
Conclusions: Peel bond strength between the denture base and the modified soft liner was
not affected by the addition of antimicrobial agents.
Key words: Antifungal agents. Tensile strength. Stomatitis. Denture bases.
biofilm 4,18, local trauma caused by dentures 12,
xerostomia21, continuous use of the dentures and
alteration in salivary pH12.
Different treatments for denture stomatitis
are available and may include topical antifungal
and systemic therapy, care with oral hygiene,
denture cleaning and disinfection procedures18,
replacement of old dentures, elimination of anatomic
irregularities, re-establishment of atraumatic
occlusion, and nutritional restitution3. Furthermore,
in order to protect and preserve the integrity of
INTRODUCTION
The oral candidiasis known as denture stomatitis
is related to the use of removable dentures and is
considered the most common oral lesion observed
(65%)27 in patients wearing removable dentures.
Although the etiology of denture stomatitis is
multifactorial, infection by Candida spp., especially
C. albicans, is considered the main etiologic factor.
Local factors associated with the denture are also
related to this pathology, such as: presence of
J Appl Oral Sci.
607
2012;20(6):607-12
Peel bond strength of resilient liner modified by the addition of antimicrobial agents to denture base acrylic resin
the mucosal epithelium, patients should sleep
without the dentures6. The choice of a treatment or
association of more than one treatment is an aspect
to be individually considered. Re-infection of the
treated oral mucosa may occur in up to two weeks
post-treatment, and is attributed to the survival
of Candida spp. due to insufficient concentration
of the antifungal agent on the denture surfaces16.
Therefore, it is crucial to adopt methods that reduce
or preferably eliminate the microorganisms from
denture surfaces.
In addition, resilient materials have been routinely
used with the purpose of recovering tissues that are
in contact with the denture base24. These materials
partially absorb chewing load on the denture during
function, thus reducing the energy transmitted to the
associated paraprosthetic tissues17. However, these
materials are easily degradable and susceptible to
microbial colonization14, which may cause different
degrees of denture stomatitis.
To prolong the clinical longevity of resilient
materials and reduce plaque accumulation,
incorporation of antimicrobial agents into these
materials has been proposed20. This combination
may be a logical therapy in the treatment of
denture stomatitis because of several factors: 1.
reducing the trauma caused by the internal surface
of removable dentures; 2. eliminating contact of
the contaminated surface with the oral tissues and
consequently, interrupting the cycle of re-infection,
and 3. action of antimicrobial agents incorporated
into the material on the infected tissues 20. In
this context, denture stomatitis may be treated
before fabricating new dentures, in a relatively
short period. The reason is attributed to their
gradual degradation and hardening, so it should
not take longer than two weeks, which is a period
similar to the one required for the treatment with
conventional topical antifungal drugs20,22.
The incorporation of antimicrobial agents into
resilient materials has shown to be effective and
Materials
Type
Soft Confort
Resilient
liner
QC 20
Heat-curing
acrylic resin
Manufacturer
feasible both in in vitro and in vivo studies6,20,22.
Despite these therapeutic advantages, the
incorporation of drugs into polymeric materials,
including tissue conditioners and resilient liners,
may affect their properties. For the resilient liner
to adequately perform its function of recovering
the tissues injured by trauma, it should remain
bonded to the acrylic base of the removable
denture5. Peeling of the resilient material from the
denture base has been reported as the cause of
clinical failure and the bond between the resilient
materials and the denture base acrylic resins has
been the object of previous investigations13,17. Thus,
the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect
of the addition of antimicrobial agents (nystatin,
miconazole, ketoconazole, and chlorhexidine
diacetate) to a resilient liner on its peel bond
strength to a denture base acrylic resin. The
hypothesis investigated in this study was that the
addition of antimicrobial agents to a resilient liner
would result in changes in the peel bond strength
to a denture base acrylic resin.
MATERIAL AND METhODS
The acrylic materials, manufacturers, batch
numbers, compositions, powder/liquid ratios, and
polymerization conditions selected for this study are
listed in Figure 1. The selected antimicrobial agents
were nystatin, miconazole, ketoconazole (Alonatu
Farmácia de Manipulação e Cosméticos/Farmácia
Dermatus, Maceió, AL, Brazil – Req. 119704-1),
and 98% chlorhexidine diacetate (Acros Organics,
Morris Plains, NJ, USA).
Specimen preparation
Specimens (n=9)17 measuring 75x10x3 mm13,17
of heat-curing acrylic resin QC 20 (Dentsply Ind. e
Com. Ltda., Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) were made. For
this purpose, stainless steel matrixes measuring
75x10x3 mm were molded using laboratory silicone
Batch
number
Composition
Powder/
liquid ratio
Polymerization conditions
Powder
Dencril Prod.
(010068)
Odontol., São
Paulo, SP, Brazil
Poly(ethyl
methacrylate),
phtalate ester,
ethyl alcohol
1.27 g/1 mL
5 min at room temperature
Liquid
(503793)
Poly(methyl
methacrylate),
methyl
methacrylate,nbutyl
methacrylate
2.3 g/1 mL
1. Heat water to boiling point;
2. Turn off the water bath; 3.
Put the flask in and leave it for
20 min; 4. Turn on the water
bath; 5. When the boiling
point is reached, wait another
20 min.
Dentsply Ind.
Com. Ltda.,
Petrópolis, RJ,
Brazil
Figure 1- Materials selected for this study
J Appl Oral Sci.
608
2012;20(6):607-12
ALCÂNTARA CS, MACÊDO AFC, GURGEL BCV, JORGE JH, NEPPELENBROEK KH, URBAN VM
glass slide and kept under finger pressure during
the resilient liner polymerization time recommended
by the manufacturer (Figure 1). The excesses of
the modified resilient liner were eliminated and the
specimen was removed from the mold. The relined
specimens were then stored in distilled water at
37°C for 24 h prior to the peel test.
(Zetalabor, Rovigo, Veneto, Italy) between two
glass plates. The mold/matrix set was invested in
conventional metal dental flasks in Type III dental
stone (Herodent, Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, RJ,
Brazil). The dental flasks were closed and remained
under pressure (500 kgf) in a hydraulic press during
stone setting time. After this period, the dental
flasks were opened and the stainless steel matrixes
were removed.
QC 20 was proportioned, mixed according to
the manufacturer’s instructions (Figure 1), and
was inserted into the silicone matrix mold. The
dental flask was closed and kept under pressure
at room temperature (23±2°C) for 30 min. After
this period, the test specimens were submitted to
the polymerization cycle “B” recommended by resin
manufacturer (Figure 1). When the polymerization
cycle ended, the dental flasks were bench cooled for
30 min and then under running water for 15 min.
The specimens were removed from the molds and
stored in distilled water at 37°C for 48 h10.
After this period, specimens were submitted to
surface preparation to receive the modified resilient
liner. One of the specimen surfaces was abraded
automatically in a polishing machine using #600
silica carbide abrasive paper (Norton Abrasivos,
São Paulo, SP, Brazil). The abraded surface was
cleaned with detergent for 20 s, washed under
running water, and dried. The specimen was then
placed in a hollow stainless steel mold with internal
measurements of 75x10x6 mm. The specimen area
(650 mm2) to not be bonded to the resilient material
was covered with a polyester strip.
The antimicrobial powders in each experimental
group (Figure 2) were manually mixed with resilient
lining powder with a spatula, until a homogenous
mixture was obtained 24,25. The resilient lining
liquid was added to this mixture and the material
was mixed in accordance to the manufacturer’s
instructions (Figure 1). The modified material was
inserted into the hollow mold containing the test
specimen of the heat-curing acrylic resin prepared
for the relining procedure. This set was covered with
Peel test
A universal testing machine (Versat 2000,
Panambra Ind. Tech. SA, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) was
used to perform the peeling bond strength test of
the relined test specimens at an angle of 180°. A
portion of modified resilient material not bonded
to the resin base (65 mm) was folded upwards
and fixed onto the top hook of the equipment at
20 mm from the adhesive bond area of the test
specimen. The other un-relined portion of the
heat-curing acrylic resin was fixed onto the bottom
hook of the equipment13,17 at the same distance
from the adhesive bond area. each test specimen
was submitted to tension to promote peeling of the
modified resilient liner from the heat-curing acrylic
resin base at a speed of 10 mm/min until failure
occurred.
Bond failures were visually observed and
classified into three categories: adhesive, when
peeling occurred between the modified resilient
liner and the denture base acrylic resin; cohesive,
when there was tearing (rupture of the resilient
liner within the area bonded to the denture base) or
snapping (resilient material had stretched and then
ruptured away from the bonded area) within the
modified resilient liner; and mixed, when regions
with two types of failure were observed on the
surface of the denture base material13,17.
The results of rupture force were initially
obtained in N and transformed into peeling bond
strength in MPa and then submitted to one-way
ANOVA at a significant level of 5%.
Group
Antimicrobial agent
Amount of drug incorporated
G1
None (control)
None
G2
Nystatin
500,000 U
G3
Nystatin
1,000,000 U
G4
Miconazole
125 mg
G5
Miconazole
250 mg
G6
Ketoconazole
100 mg
G7
Ketoconazole
200 mg
G8
Chlorhexidine diacetate
5%
G9
Chlorhexidine diacetate
10%
Figure 2- Drug dosages incorporated into the resilient liner powder in all experimental groups
J Appl Oral Sci.
609
2012;20(6):607-12
Peel bond strength of resilient liner modified by the addition of antimicrobial agents to denture base acrylic resin
Table 1- Peel strength (MPa) at 24 h
Experimental groups
Mean (SD)*
Mode of failure
G1
0.054 (0.017)
80% cohesive; 20% mixed
G2
0.049 (0.017)
All cohesive
G3
0.043 (0.012)
80% cohesive; 20% mixed
G4
0.046 (0.013)
80% cohesive; 20% mixed
G5
0.042 (0.014)
All cohesive
G6
0.046 (0.012)
40% cohesive; 40% mixed; 20% adhesive
G7
0.050 (0.010)
80% cohesive; 20% mixed
G8
0.060 (0.012)
All cohesive
G9
0.049 (0.012)
80% cohesive; 20% mixed
* There was no statistical difference (p>0.05) among the experimental groups
materials and antimicrobial agents seems to be a
logical therapeutic modality for denture stomatitis.
This method results in a reduction of the trauma
caused by the old denture and tissue reconditioning
associated with antimicrobial therapy; important
etiologic factors in triggering infection by Candida
spp. are simultaneously eliminated. In addition,
this method favors a relined denture that can more
easily be kept clean by the patient20.
Several drugs have shown reduced water
solubility, so maximum dose is required to
have the effectiveness required for a certain
medication 8. Among the antimicrobial agents
assessed, chlorhexidine shows higher solubility
in water, followed by nystatin, miconazole, and
ketoconazole8. Although these medications are
soluble in water, they are insoluble in monomers
and plasticizers1. Thus, they could not interfere with
the polymerization or plasticization1 process of these
materials. However, their physical presence within
the polymer matrix could interrupt the structure
of the polymerized materials21. Resilient materials
containing nystatin showed increased water
sorption, and for these materials, this resulted in
breaking their morphological structure7. According
to Addy and Handley2 (1981), change in material
properties may be consistent with the incorporation
pattern of the medication into the polymer matrix. A
previous study24 assessed the incorporation pattern
of antimicrobial agents into a tissue conditioner with
the same concentrations to those investigated in this
study, by scanning electronic microscopy (SeM) and
energy dispersive spectroscopy x-ray (eDS). The
test specimens containing nystatin and miconazole
exhibited particles with irregular shapes and sizes
distributed uniformly within the tissue conditioner
matrix while specimens with chlorhexidine exhibited
more irregular particles distributed randomly within
the material. However, these alterations would not
prevent the incorporation of drugs for release in the
oral cavity if they were added to materials to reline
RESULTS
The results of peel bond strength are shown
in Table 1. There was no significant difference
(p=0.148) among the experimental groups.
Therefore, the incorporation of antimicrobial agents
in the concentrations assessed did not affect the
peeling bond strength between the resilient liner
and the denture base resin after 24 h of immersion
in distilled water.
The failure modes obtained after performing the
tests are shown in Table 1. The majority of bond
failures were cohesive (tearing and/or snapping)
within the resilient liner. For the experimental
groups G2 (nystatin at 500,000 U), G5 (miconazole
at 250 mg), and G8 (5% chlorhexidine diacetate),
a mixture of tearing and snapping was observed.
Peeling away from the denture base was only
observed for groups G6 (ketoconazole at 100 mg)
and G9 (10% chlorhexidine diacetate). For the
other groups, cohesive and mixed bond failures
were observed.
DISCUSSION
The hypothesis investigated in this study that
“the addition of antimicrobial agents to the resilient
liner would result in alterations in the peeling
bond strength to denture base resin” was rejected
because there was no difference between the
experimental groups assessed in comparison with
the control group without the addition of drugs.
During clinical use, the resilient materials are
highly subjected to degradation and susceptible
to the colonization by microorganisms. If these
materials are not regularly replaced, they may act
as microorganism reservoirs, causing systemic
complications23. An example of this is the presence
in the oral cavity of Staphylococcus aureus,
a microorganism responsible for respiratory
infections15. The combination between resilient
J Appl Oral Sci.
610
2012;20(6):607-12
ALCÂNTARA CS, MACÊDO AFC, GURGEL BCV, JORGE JH, NEPPELENBROEK KH, URBAN VM
Co., Worth, IL, USA) modified by the addition of
nystatin showed cohesive strength values similar
to those of the control group. These values were
close, if not similar, to the ones obtained in this
study. Therefore, the cohesive strength of the
resilient material tested in this study is equivalent
to its bond strength to the denture base material.
Thus, the material will snap or tear at the bond
interface at forces lower than those necessary to
cause bond failures.
One of the limitations of this study was that
only one brand of the resilient liner was assessed.
Moreover, the peeling bond strength could have
been assessed after other storage periods. This
assessment is also important to observe a possible
reduction in bond strength of the modified liner
to the denture base material, since it has been
reported that plasticizers and alcohols are released
from resilient materials after periods of storage
in water and this release is responsible for the
decrease in the bond strength values between the
materials13. However, these analyses are object of
future investigations.
already existent dentures2, without necessarily
reducing their strength.
Although some soft materials are submitted
only to compression and shear, tensile strength
is used to measure the quality of the material.
The ability of the material to resist tearing is of
practical importance. In clinical use, including
the cleaning and disinfection procedures, the soft
materials are submitted to conditions that start
the tearing process. Adequate bonding between
denture base resin and soft material is therefore
essential. Clinical failure of these materials is
frequently attributed to the rupture of this bond,
and the measurements of this bond are clinically
relevant. Reduced bond between the soft liner and
the denture base resin effectively negates any other
property considered adequate for this material26. In
the peel bond strength test, the stress is confined
to a line restricted to the end of the bond, and is
considered the most clinically representative of the
failure modes26. This is the only method in which
the failure proceeds at controlled speed and it is a
direct measure of peeling, while it also represents
the elastic deformation of the material9. The peeling
test simulates the lining procedure more precisely,
with a uniform and constant distribution of force
throughout the bond area26.
The results of this study demonstrated that the
addition of antimicrobial agents in all the assessed
concentrations did not affect the peeling bond
strength of the resilient liner to denture base resin.
However, the bond strength values were considered
low, since they were approximately 10 times lower
than the acceptable value for the clinical use of
resilient liners (0.44 MPa)11.
While the methodology in this study was
performed, some modifications were made, such as
the reduction in bond area and surface roughness of
the denture base, to ensure that the methodology
evaluated the bonding between materials rather
than the cohesive strength of the liner material.
If the bond failures observed in this study were
predominantly cohesive within the liner material,
the peeling bond strength would not be measured9.
The failure mode of the cohesive type provides
information related to the material itself and not to
the bond between materials19. emmer, et al.8 (1995)
suggested the term “strength failure” instead
of “bond failure” when cohesive failures occur.
Predominant cohesive failures, such as those that
occurred in this study, indicate poor resistance to
tearing of the resilient material. However, mixed and
adhesive failures were observed in some samples,
indicating that the cohesive strength values of the
resilient liner and bond strength values to base
resin were similar.
A previous study 25 observed that a tissue
conditioner (Duraconditioner, Reliance Manufacturing
J Appl Oral Sci.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can
be concluded that it is possible to incorporate any
of the antimicrobial agents assessed in the selected
concentrations into a resilient liner without changing
the bond strength of this material to denture base
resin. A clinical study is still needed to determine
the therapeutic validity of this alternative treatment
modality.
REFERENCES
1- Addy M. In vitro studies into the use of denture base and soft
liner materials as carriers for drugs in the mouth. J Oral Rehabil.
1981;8:131-42.
2- Addy M, Handley R. The effects of the incorporation of
chlorhexidine acetate on some physical properties of polymerized
and plasticized acrylics. J Oral Rehabil. 1981;8:155-63.
3- Aldana L, Marker VA, Kolstad R, Iacopino AM. effects of Candida
treatment regimens on the physical properties of denture resins.
Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:473-8.
4- Banting DW, Greenhorn PA, McMinn JG. effectiveness of a
topical antifungal regimen for the treatment of oral candidiasis in
older, chronically ill, institutionalized, adults. J Can Dent Assoc.
1995;61:199-200,203-5.
5- Braden M, Wright PS, Parker S. Soft lining materials - a review.
eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1995;3:163-74.
6- Carter GM, Kerr MA, Shepherd MG. The rational management of
oral candidosis associated with dentures. N Z Dent J. 1986;82:814.
7- Douglas WH, Clarke D. The physical properties of nystatin
containing denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 1975;34:428-34.
8- emmer TJ Jr, emmer TJ Sr, Vaidynathan J, Vaidynathan TK.
Bond strength of permanent soft denture liners bonded to the
denture base. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74:595-601.
9- Gent AN, Hamed GR. Peel mechanics of adhesive joints. Polym
eng Sci. 1977;17:462-6.
611
2012;20(6):607-12
Peel bond strength of resilient liner modified by the addition of antimicrobial agents to denture base acrylic resin
10- International Organization for Standardization. Specification
1567: Denture base polymers. 2nd ed. Geneva: The Organization;
1998.
11- Kawano F, Dootz eR, Koran A 3rd, Craig RG. Comparison of
bond strength of six soft denture liners to denture base resin. J
Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:368-71.
12- Lombardi T, Budtz-Jörgensen e. Treatment of denture-induced
stomatitis: a review. eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1993;2:17-22.
13- Machado AL, Breeding LC, Puckett AD. effect of microwave
disinfection on the hardness and adhesion of two resilient liners.
J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:183-9.
14- Mäkilä e, Hopsu-Havu VK. Mycotic growth and soft denture
lining materials. Acta Odontol Scand. 1977;35:197-205.
15- Marsh PD, Percival RS, Challacombe SJ. The influence of
denture-wearing and age on the oral microflora. J Dent Res.
1992;71:1374-81.
16- Mathaba LT, Davies G, Warmington JR. The genotypic
relationship of Candida albicans strains isolated from the oral
cavity of patients with denture stomatitis. J Med Microbiol.
1995;42:372-9.
17- McCabe JF, Carrick Te, Kamohara H. Adhesive bond strength
and compliance for denture soft lining materials. Biomaterials.
2002;23:1347-52.
18- Montagner H, Montagner F, Braun KO, Peres Pe, Gomes BP. In
vitro antifungal action of different substances over microwavedcured acrylic resins. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:432-5.
19- Pinto JR, Mesquita MF, Henriques Ge, Arruda Nóbilo MA. effect
of thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of 4 long-term
soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:516-21.
J Appl Oral Sci.
20- Schneid TR. An in vitro analysis of a sustained release system
for the treatment of denture stomatitis. Spec Care Dentist.
1992;12:245-50.
21- Torres SR, Peixoto CB, Caldas DM, Silva eB, Akiti T, Nucci M,
et al. Relationship between salivary flow rates and Candida counts
in subjects with xerostomia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol endod. 2002;93:149-54.
22- Truhlar MR, Shay K, Sohnle P. Use of a new assay technique
for quantification of antifungal activity of nystatin incorporated in
denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:517-24.
23- Ueshige M, Abe Y, Sato Y, Tsuga K, Akagawa Y, Ishii M.
Dynamic viscoelastic properties of antimicrobial tissue conditioners
containing silver-zeolite. J Dent. 1999;27:517-22.
24- Urban VM, Seó RS, Giannini M, Arrais CA. Superficial
distribution and identification of antifungal/antimicrobial agents
on a modified tissue conditioner by SEM-EDS microanalysis: a
preliminary study. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:603-10.
25- Urban VM, Souza RF, Arrais CA, Borsato KT, Vaz LG. effect of
the association of nystatin with a tissue conditioner on its ultimate
tensile strength. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:295-9.
26- Waters MG, Jagger RG. Mechanical properties of an
experimental denture soft lining material. J Dent. 1999;27:197202.
27- Zegarelli DJ. Fungal infections of the oral cavity. Otolaryngol
Clin North Am. 1993;26:1069-89.
612
2012;20(6):607-12