Share Page:

Volume 20 , Issue 4
July/August 2007

Pages 405–408

Effect of Different Mucosal and Acrylic Resin Surface Treatments in a Denture Retention Model for Patients with Radiotherapy-Induced Xerostomia

Cumhur Sipahi, DDS, PhD / Murat Beyzadeoglu, MD, PhD / Serdar Demirtas, MD, PhD / Julide Ozen, DDS, PhD

PMID: 17695873

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of oral moisturizing agents, denture adhesives, and surface treatments on the retention of an acrylic resin test base dislodged from the maxillary alveolar ridges of xerostomic radiotherapy patients. Acrylic resin test bases prepared for 10 edentulous xerostomia patients were subjected to 8 surface treatment methods: method 1 = untreated dry surface; method 2 = use of Biotène oral moisturizer; method 3 = use of Protefix denture adhesive; method 4 = combination of Biotène and Protefix; method 5 = sandblasting of test bases; method 6 = use of Biotène on sandblasted surface; method 7 = use of Protefix on sandblasted surface; method 8 = combination of Protefix and Biotène on sandblasted surface. After each treatment, a tensile testing apparatus was used to dislodge the inserted test bases, and force values (N) were recorded. A significant difference in retentive force was observed between the 4 Protefix groups and those that did not use denture adhesive (P < .001). There were no differences among the 4 combinations of denture adhesive treatments (P > .05). Sandblasting the denture surfaces did not increase retentive forces alone or in combination with any other treatments. Biotène oral moisturizing agent was used in 4 treatment methods, but only had a significant effect on increasing retentive force when used with a nonsandblasted surface (P < .05). Biotène had no effect on retentive force compared to a nonsandblasted surface without moisturizer or when it was used in combination with any other methods. Protefix denture adhesive offered the greatest improvement in retentive force. Sandblasting the intaglio surface did not improve retentive force. Biotène was reported to improve patient comfort but had minimal effect on retentive force; however, Biotène can be assumed to be a more advantageous method of increasing retention compared to sandblasting (P < .05). Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:405–408

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us