Mechanical Properties and Simulated Aging of Silicone Maxillofacial Elastomers: Advancements in the Past 45 Years. Issue 5 (24th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hatamleh, Muhanad M.; Polyzois, Gregory L.; Nuseir, Amjad; Hatamleh, Khaldoun; Alnazzawi, Ahmad
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 25:Issue 5(2016)
• Page Start: 418
• Page End: 426
• Publication Date: 2016-01-24
• Subjects: Silicone elastomer -- artificial aging -- mechanical properties -- facial silicone; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12409
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To identify and discuss the findings of publications on mechanical behavior of maxillofacial prosthetic materials published since 1969. Methods: Original experimental articles reporting on mechanical properties of maxillofacial prosthetic materials were included. A two‐stage search of the literature, electronic and hand search, identified relevant published studies up to May 2015. An extensive electronic search was conducted of databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Included primary studies (n = 63) reported on tensile strength, tear strength, and hardness of maxillofacial prosthetic materials at baseline and after aging. Results: The search revealed 63 papers, with more than 28 papers being published in the past 10 years, which shows an increased number of publications when compared to only 6 papers published in the 1970s. The increase is linear with significant correlation (r = 0.85). Such an increase reflects great awareness and continued developments and warrants more research in the field of maxillofacial prosthetic materials properties; however, it is difficult to directly compare results, as studies varied in maxillofacial prosthetic materials tested with various silicone elastomers being heavily investigated, standards followed in preparing test specimens, experimental testing protocols, and parameters used in setting simulated aging conditionings. Conclusion: It is imperative to overcome the existing variability by establishing unified national or international standards/specifications for maxillofacial prosthetic materials. Standardization organizations or bodies, the scientific community, and academia need to be coordinated to achieve this goal. In the meantime and despite all of these theoretically significant alternatives, clinical practice still faces problems with serviceability of maxillofacial prostheses.