SECTION EDITORS

s of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers:

art III-Physical properties
Steven P. Haug, DDS,a Carl J. Andres, DDS, MSD,b
Carlos A. Munoz, DDS, MSD,” and Mitsunobu Okamura, DDSd
Indiana University, School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Ind.

The physical properties of four currently used and two recently introduced
maxillofacial prosthetic materials were evaluated after the materials were
subjected to the following seven environmental variables: natural weathering,
normal aging, two types of adhesives, two types of cleaning agents and cosmetics.
Ultimate tensile strength, percent elongation, tear strength, and Shore A hardness
were evaluated. The physical properties recorded for the currently used materials
were consistent with previous studies. Although the properties of the recently
introduced materials were similar to those currently in use, one of the new
materials, A-2186, showed high strength values, although it was one of the softest
materials tested. Unfortunately, this new material lost these advantageous
characteristics as it was weakened and made harder by most of the tested
environmental variables. (J PROSTHET DENT 1992;68:644-51.)

art I1 of this article was a literature review Products, Inc., Butler, Wise.), one high temperature-
regarding the physical properties and testing method of vulcanizing silicone (Silastic 4-4515, Dow Corning Corp.,
elastomers used for maxillofacial prosthetics. Midland, Mich.) and two room temperature-vulcanizing
Part II2 presented the results of an international survey silicones (Silastic Medical Adhesive, type A, and Silastic
of prosthodontists and prosthetists concerning the cur- 4-4210, Dow Corning Corp.). The Instron universal testing
rently available materials of choice for the fabrication of machine (Instron Corp., Canton, Mass.) was used to eval-
facial prostheses. In addition, the advantages and disad- uate ultimate tensile strength, percent elongation, and tear
vantages of each material, the coloring methods available, strength. Hardness was measured with a Shore durometer
and the properties of the “ideal material” were reported. (Type A, Shore Mfg. Co., Jamaica, N.Y.).
The results of the survey indicated that the majority of
prosthodontists and prosthetists are using room tempera- Fabrication and treatment of specimens
ture-vulcanized (RTV) silicone products, and the prosthe- Ten specimens of each material (five dumbbell shaped
sis is intrinsically colored with dry earth pigments or art- and five trouser shaped) were fabricated according to
ists’ pigments. ASTM No. D4123 and D624 (die C)4 specifications for each
The purpose of part III is to evaluate the effect of envi- experimental treatment (Figs. 1 and 2). The specimens
ronmental factors (including weather and sunlight), clean- were processed in three-piece aluminum molds (Fig. 3) with
ing agents, cosmetics, adhesives, and the passage of time on the exception of Silastic Medical Adhesive type A material,
the physical properties of four maxillofacial elastomers which was processed in stone molds. All materials were
listed as popular in Part II. In addition, two recently intro- handled in strict compliance with the manufacturers’
duced materials were compared with these four materials. instructions. A total of 480 specimens were made (80 spec-
imens per material). The specimens were assigned to a
MATERIALS AND METHODS control group or one of seven environmental factors treat-
Six maxillofacial elastomers were evaluated: two recently ment groups. The experimental groups were treated as fol-
introduced room temperature-vulcanizing silicones (A- lows:
2186, and A-102, Factor II, Inc., Lakeside, AZ) and four 1. Natural weathering. Specimens in this treat-
popular elastomers; one polyurethane (Epithane-3, Daro ment group were suspended from wooden racks by means
of stainless steel ligature wire and the assembly was placed
on the roof of the Dental School in downtown Indianapolis
for a period of 6 months (November 1989 through April
“Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics. 1990). This time frame was selected because it is consistent
bAssociate Professor and Director of Graduate Prosthodontics.
CAssociate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics. with the clinical observation of the authors that a prosthe-
dGraduate student. sis often needs to be evaluated for refabrication within this
10/l/39924 time period. Specimens were evaluated monthly for changes

644 OCTOBER 1992 VOLUME 68 NUMBER 4

PROPERTIES OF MAXILLOFACIAL ELASTOMERS:
Fig. 1. ASTM
4 102mm
Fig. 2. ASTM No. D624 (die C) specifications
in color or deterioration, such as surface tackiness. Addi-
tional evaluations were conducted after periods of severe
weather. At the end of the treatment period, the specimens
were removed, cleaned for 10 minutes in distilled water in
an ultrasonic cleaner, wiped dry, and tested.
2. Time passage. Specimens in this treatment group
were suspended in sealed glass containers with stainless
steel ligature wires and placed in a dark environment at
ambient room temperature and humidity for 6 months. At
the end of this time, the specimens were removed and
tested.
3. Adhesive groups. Before treatment, the speci-
mens in these two groups were suspended in sealed glass
containers with stainless steel ligature wire and placed in
a dark environment at ambient room temperature and hu-
midity for a period of 4 months to eliminate the passage of
time as a variable. The specimens assigned to Pros-Aide
experimental group (Pros-Aide Adhesive, ADM Tronics
Inc., Northvale, N.J.), and the Secure experimental group
(Secure Medical Adhesive, Factor II, Inc., Lakeside, AZ)
were then submerged in the adhesive in the same glass
containers, sealed, and replaced in the same dark environ-
ment at room temperature for 2 months. This time inter-
val is consistent with an &hour a day application of adhe-
sive over a B-month period. At the end of the treatment
period the specimens were removed and wiped dry with a
soft cloth. Any adherent adhesive was then rubbed off with
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
III
115mm ,
-33mm-
No. D412 specifications for dumbbell-shaped specimens.
b
T
19mm
5lmm;1
for trouser shaped specimens.
finger pressure, which is consistent with clinical removal by
the patient. The specimens were then tested.
4. Cleaning agents. To eliminate the effect of time
passage, the specimens in these two groups were also sus-
pended in sealed glass containers with stainless steel liga-
ture wire and placed in a dark environment at ambient
room temperature and humidity for 5 months. The spec-
imens assigned to the isopropyl alcohol group, and the
nail polish-remover group were then submerged in the
cleaning agent that had been placed in the same glass
containers, sealed, and replaced in the same dark environ-
ment at room temperature for 30 hours. This time interval
was selected because it is the approximate period that
a prosthesis would be in contact with the cleaning agent
if a patient cleaned a prosthesis for 10 minutes a day for
6 months. At the end of the treatment period the speci-
mens were removed, wiped dry with a soft cloth, and
tested.
5. Cosmetics. The specimens in this group were placed
in sealed glass containers in a dark environment at ambi-
ent room temperature and humidity for 4 months to elim-
inate the passage of time as a variable. The specimens were
then submerged in cold cream that had been placed in the
same glass containers, sealed, and replaced in the same
dark environment at room temperature for 2 months. This
time interval was selected because it is consistent with ap-
plication of cosmetics 8 hours a day over a 6-month period.
645
 HAUG ET AL

Fig. 3. Three piece aluminum molds for fabricating. A, ASTM No. D412, dumbbell-
shaped specimens; B, ASTM No. D624; die c, trouser shaped specimens.

Table I. Tensile strengths of control groups for the six fore breaking was recorded, and the tensile strength of the
elastomers (n = 5) specimen calculated, with the median of three measure-
Tensile ments of thickness for the specimen used to obtain the
strength cross-sectional area. The thickness measurements were
Material (MPa) SD
made at the center and at each end of the reduced section
Silastic 4-4515 9.52 0.60 of the specimen with a vernier caliper with digital readout
A-2186 4.83 0.70 (Mitutoyo “Digimatic” CD-6). The median tensile strength
Silastic 4-4210 2.47 0.22 value for the five specimens was recorded as the tensile
A-102 1.88 0.17 strength for that treatment.
Medical Adhesive A 1.13 0.26 Percent elongation test. Bench marks were placed on
Epithane-3 0.83 0.14 the specimen 25 mm apart before testing and the additional
Values connected by vertical lines are not statistically different (p < 0.05). distance between the bench marks at fracture were re-
corded. This additional distance at fracture, divided by the
original distance of the unloaded specimen, multiplied by
At the end of the treatment period, the specimens were re- 100 was calculated as the percent elongation of that sam-
moved, wiped dry with a soft cloth, and tested. ple. The median of the values obtained for the five speci-
The control group specimens were tested within one mens was taken as the percent elongation for that treat-
week of fabrication. ment.
Shore A hardness test. In keeping with ASTM spec-
ification No. D2240,5 three specimens were stacked on one
The dumbbell-shaped specimens were used simulta- another in random order to obtain the required 6 mm min-
neously to perform both the tensile strength test and per- imum thickness and placed on a hard horizontal surface.
cent elongation tests. The trouser-shaped specimens were The Shore A durometer was held in a vertical position and
used first for the hardness testing and then for tear the pressor foot was applied parallel to the surface of the
strength. All tests were performed at 23’ 2 2’ C, with the specimens as rapidly as possible without shock. The read-
specimens conditioned at this temperature for at least 24 ings were made 1 second after firm contact was achieved.
hours. Five readings in the same five relative locations were made
Ultimate tensile strength test. The tensile strength with a 6 mm distance maintained between readings and a
is defined as the force required to break the specimen, di- 12 mm distance from the edge of the specimen. The mean
vided by the cross-sectional area of the unstretched spec- of the five readings was calculated to represent the hard-
imen. In keeping with ASTM D412 specifications, each ness of that specimen. The next specimen was placed on top
specimen was placed in the grips of the testing machine and of the stack, the bottom specimen was removed, and the
stretched at a rate of 8.5 mm/mm. The maximum force be- procedure was repeated to obtain readings for that speci-

646 OCTOBER 1992 VOLUME 68 NUMBER 4

PROPERTIES OF MAXILLOFACIAL ELASTOMERS: III

Table II. Tensile strengths of experimental Table III. Mean percent elongation of control groups
groups-comparisons among environmental variables (n = 8)
within each material (n = 5)
Material % Elongation SD
Tensile
strength A 2186 488 74.96
Material Treatment (MPa) SD 4-4515 476 32.86
4-4210 356 61.07
4-4210 Cosmetics 6.51 1.44
Med Adh A 304 31.30
Pros-Aide adh 3.40 0.87
2.88
Epithane-3 224 71.27
Nail pol rem 0.31
A-102 130 15.81
Time 2.51 0.68
Control 2.41 0.22 Values connected by vertical lines are not statistically different @ < 0.05).
Alcohol 2.35 0.52
Weathering 2.18 0.51
Secure adh 2.18 0.53
men. This was repeated until all five specimens for that
4-4515 Time 9.76 1.40 group were evaluated. Measurements were made 48 hours
Control 9.52 0.60 after fabrication and at the end of the testing procedure.
Secure adh 9.22 2.37 Tear strength test. Tear strength is defined as the
Alcohol 8.83 0.57 maximum force required to break a specimen, divided by
Pros-Aide adh 8.55 0.54 the maximum thickness of the specimen. The specimens
Weathering 8.17 1.06 were placed in the grips of the testing machine and
Nail pol rem 8.03 1.36 stretched at a rate of 500 mm/minute. The maximum force
Cosmetics 1.38 0.19
required to break the specimen and the mean thickness of
the specimen were recorded. The thickness was measured
Med Adh A Time 2.48 1.29
Pros-Aide adh 2.43 0.39
at three locations at the intersection of the “trouser leg”
Nail pol rem 2.12 0.31 with a vernier caliper with digital readout, and the mean
Weathering 2.12 0.63 was recorded as the thickness of that specimen. From these
Secure adh 1.90 0.40 measurements, the tear strength of that specimen was cal-
Alcohol 1.83 0.33 culated. In keeping with ASTM No. 624, the value reported
Cosmetics 1.64 0.17 for a treatment group is the median of the five values ob-
Control 1.13 0.26 tained for the samples of that group.

A-102 Time 2.06 0.79 Statistical analysis

Control 1.88 0.17
All data were first evaluated for homogeneity of variance
Secure adh 1.79 0.28
by Bartlett’s chi-square test. Then either an analysis of
Pros-Aide adh , 1.78 0.52
Nail pol rem 1.58 0.60 variance or Welch test was conducted. If a significant dif-
Weathering 1.30 0.64 ference among means was found, a Neuman-Keul’s multi-
Alcohol 1.27 0.69 ple range test was performed to identify the differences
Cosmetics 0.74 0.09 between any of the groups at a significance level of p = 0.05.
Analyses were conducted for each material across the range
Epithane-3 Time 1.41 0.44 of experimental groups and for all materials for each
Secure adh 1.40 0.30 experimental group. In addition, a t-test was used to eval-
Cosmetics 1.22 0.40 uate any differences between before- and after-treatment
Pros-Aide adh 1.21 0.15
specimens.
Weathering 1.14 0.11
Alcohol 1.00 0.19 RESULTS
Control 0.83 0.14
Nail pol rem 0.80 0.18 Tensile strength. Silastic 4-4515 was the strongest of
the materials tested, with tensile strengths nearly 50%
A-2186 Weathering 5.63 1.16 higher than the next strongest material (Table I). Medical
Pros-Aide adh 5.12 1.00 Adhesive A and Epithane-3 materials were the weakest.
Nail pol rem 5.11 0.76 When the control groups were compared with the seven
Alcohol 5.02 0.69 different test groups, all of the environmental variables had
Time 4.87 0.35 an effect on the tensile strength of the elastomers (Table
Control 4.83 0.70 II). Dependent on the variable, the tensile strength
Secure adh 4.83 0.52
increased or decreased. Three of the materials were sig-
Cosmetics 2.70 0.37
nificantly weakened by exposure to cosmetics, Silastic
Values connected by vertical lines are not statistically different @ < 0.05). 4-4515, A-102 and A-2186, whereas one material, Silastic

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 647

 HAUG ET AL

Table IV. Percent elongation of experimental groups Table V. Mean tear strengths of control groups (n = 5)
(n = 5)
Tear strength
% Material (KN/m) SD
Material Treatment Elongation SD
A-2186 35.50 5.05
4-4210 Control 356 61.07 4-4515 18.20 2.16
Cosmetics 322 67.60 Med Adh A 12.20 1.41
Pros-Aide adh 282 45.49 Epithane-3 7.97 2.06
Alcohol 274 39.11 4-4210 5.16 0.53
Nail pol rem 272 37.01 A-102 3.98 0.78
Time 268 51.67
Values connected by vertical lines are not statistically different 0, < 0.05).
Weathering 218 55.40
Secure adh 196 54.12

4-4515 Control 476 32.86 4-4210, was strengthened by exposure to cosmetics (Table
Secure adh 368 133.11 II).
Pros-Aide adh 334 25.09 Although the effect of time increased the tensile strength
Alcohol 324 20.73 of all of the materials, the increase was not statistically sig-
Weathering 324 63.48 nificant when compared with the different environmental
Nail pol rem 318 66.48 factors.
Time 304 57.27 Percent elongation. When the control groups were
Cosmetics 186 46.15
evaluated among themselves, A-2186 and Silastic 4-4515
materials had the highest percent elongation, and A-102
Med Adh A Control 304 31.30
had the lowest (Table III). When the six elastomers were
Cosmetics 254 39.11
Pros-Aide adh 252 62.20
compared against the different environmental variables, all
Nail pol rem 228 38.34 of the materials showed a decrease in percent elongation
Time 210 30.82 when compared with the control groups (Table IV). That
Alcohol 210 40.62 decrease in strength was not statistically significant for Si-
Weathering 206 62.28 lastic 4-4210 and Medical Adhesive A materials. The use of
Secure adh 184 32.71 cosmetics had a significant affect on the Silastic 4-4515
material when compared with the rest of the variables
A-102 Control 130 15.81 (Table IV). Passage of time had a significant affect for all
Time 84 26.07
materials when compared with the control groups, with the
Weathering 78 43.81
exception of the Silastic 4-4210 material.
Pros-Aide adh 70 20.00
Tear strength. When the control specimens were
Nail pol rem 70 30.00
Secure adh 62 13.03 compared by themselves, the A-2186 specimens had the
Alcohol 56 26.07 highest tear strength, and the Epithane-3, Silastic 4-4210,
Cosmetics 38 16.43 and A-102 specimens had the lowest values (Table V).
When the seven environmental factors were compared
Epithane-3 Control 224 71.27 with the controls, Silastic 4-4210 material showed a signif-
Weathering 222 54.95 icant increase in strength due to cosmetics and A-102 ma-
Cosmetics 150 74.49 terial showed an increased tear strength due to Secure Ad-
Pros-Aide adh 104 11.40 hesive material, whereas Medical Adhesive A and A-2186
Alcohol 80 20.00
material showed a significant decrease in tear strength due
Secure adh 74 32.09
to all treatment variables. With the exception of the Silas-
Time 68 24.89
Nail pol rem 62 23.87
tic 4-4210 and A-102 specimens, passage of time caused
decreased strength (Table VI).
A-2186 Control 448 74.96 A-2186 had the highest tear strength of all materials, but
Nail pol rem 336 49.29 when exposed to the different environmental factors, the
Alcohol 330 37.41 strength significantly decreased.
Weathering 332 63.00 Shore A hardness. When the materials were com-
Secure adh 270 38.07 pared, Silastic 4-4535 and Epithane-3 had the highest pre-
Time 270 21.21 treatment Shore A hardness values, whereas A-2186 had
Pros-Aide adh 250 48.90
the lowest hardness (Table VII). When the pretreatment
Cosmetics 234 20.73
Shore A hardness values were compared with the post-
Values connected by vertical lines are not statistically different (p < 0.05). treatment values, Silastic 4-4210 material was not statisti-

643 OCTOBER 1992 VOLUME 68 NUMBER 4

PROPERTIES OF MAXILLOFACIAL ELASTOMERS: III

Table VI. Tear strengths of experimental groups (n = 5) Table VII. Mean Pretreatment Shore A hardness
(n = 35)
Tear
strengths Shore A
Material Treatment (KN/m) SD Material hardness SD

4-4210 Cosmetics 12.94 5.72 4-4515 50.16 1.32

Time 7.58 2.46 Epithane-3 46.62 2.93
Secure adh 6.54 0.40 A-102 38.34 1.47
Pros-Aid adh 5.68 0.29 Med Adh A 29.37 2.21
Control 5.16 0.53 4-4210 28.93 0.52
Alcohol 5.01 0.40 A-2186 22.84 0.42
Weathering 4.83 0.67
Nail pol rem 4.38 0.80 Valuesconnectedby vertical line are not statistically different (p < 0.05).

4-4515 Secure adh 22.40 2.54

Control 18.20 2.16 tally significantly affected by exposure to cosmetics. This
Weathering 18.10 1.80 material was softened by the Secure Adhesive material and
Alcohol 17.89 5.19 hardened by all other treatments (Table VIII).
Pros-Aide adh 12.20 3.29 The Shore A hardness of Silastic 4-4515 material was not
Time 15.10 2.29 statistically significantly affected by weathering, alcohol,
Nail pol rem 14.91 3.06 and the passage of time. This material was softened by
Cosmetics 7.32 3.28
cosmetics and Secure Adhesive material and was hardened
by Pros-Aide adhesive and nail polish remover.
Med Adh A Control 12.20 1.41
Medical Adhesive A material was not statistically af-
Secure adh 8.24 1.50
Time 7.58 2.21 fected by alcohol, Pros-Aide adhesive, nail polish remover,
Nail pol rem 6.99 1.41 or cosmetics, but it was hardened by time and weathering
Alcohol 6.47 0.74 and softened by Secure Adhesive material.
Weathering 6.08 0.85 The hardness value of A-102 material was not statisti-
Pros-Aide adh 6.14 0.42 cally affected by cosmetics and Secure Adhesive material
Cosmetics 5.10 1.37 but was hardened by all other treatments.
Epithane-3 material was not statistically affected by Se-
A-102 Secure adh 6.27 2.21 cure Adhesive material, passage of time, cosmetics, or
Pros-Aide adh 4.51 1.64
Pros-Aide Adhesive material, but was softened by weath-
Nail pol rem 4.31 1.96
ering, nail polish remover, and alcohol.
Time 4.29 1.69
The hardness of A-2186 material was significantly in-
Cosmetics 4.18 1.50
Control 3.98 0.78 creased by all of the treatments.
Alcohol 3.12 1.19
DISCUSSION
Weathering 2.90 0.61
The results of this investigation were comparable to
Epithane-3 Secure adh 12.20 5.63 those of other investigators for Silastic 4-4210, Silastic
Weathering 10.90 2.22 4-4515 and Medical adhesive type A materials.6-11 Moore et
Control 7.97 2.06 a1.7 reported similar strengths and hardness values but
Cosmetics 7.39 3.60 used a different specimen design. Lewis et a1.6,8 reported
Nail pol rem 6.54 2.81
similar values with similar testing methodology. The ex-
Time 6.08 1.81
tensive study of Craig et al. involving the use of accelerated
Alcohol 5.68 1.90
Pros-Aide adh 5.10 1.32
weathering also reported similar results.
The data for natural weathering and normal aging of
A-2186 Control 35.50 5.05 these materials are similar to those reported by Wiens12
Alcohol 18.63 5.09 and also similar to artificial weathering studies reported by
Weathering 17.30 4.80 Yu et a1.13
Pros-Aide adh 16.80 5.05 One significant observation was made after the cosmet-
Time 15.95 3.11 ics treatment. Tensile strength for three of the silicone
Cosmetics 15.30 3.24 materials was significantly decreased by exposure to cos-
Nail pol rem 12.88 2.56
metics; one remained unaffected; but the tensile strength
Secure adh 11.00 2.06
and tear strength of Silastic 4-4210 material nearly dou-
Values connected by vertical lines are not different (p < 0.05). bled. An explanation for the increase has not been found

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 649

 HAUG ET AL

Table VIII. Shore A hardness test (n = 5)

Pretreatment Posttreatment
Percent of change
Material Treatment Mean SD Mean SD in hardness t-Test

4-4210 Weathering 29.30 0.54 30.60 0.40 4.37 4.3

Pros-Aide 29.30 0.13 30.24 0.08 3.34 13.8
Time 28.78 0.54 30.18 0.13 4.86 5.6
Alcohol 28.78 0.37 29.78 0.34 3.47 4.4
Nail pol rem 28.40 0.82 21.52 0.67 3.94 4.6
Cosmetics 27.80 1.01 27.44 1.49 -1.22 Not significant
Secure adh 30.20 0.26 21.68 0.56 -28.28 -30.9

4-4515 Pros-Aide 49.88 1.19 55.14 0.77 10.55 8.3

Weathering 51.64 1.96 53.80 1.32 4.18 Not significant
Alcohol 51.54 0.94 53.60 0.67 2.06 Not significant
Nail pol rem 49.64 1.76 52.38 1.29 5.52 2.8
Time 47.34 1.55 49.12 1.03 3.76 Not significant
Cosmetics 49.92 0.89 46.30 1.12 -8.64 -5.65
Secure adh 50.20 1.00 34.72 0.99 -30.84 -24.6

Med Adh A Weathering 27.96 0.47 33.18 1.37 18.67 8.1

Alcohol 28.48 1.30 31.38 2.15 10.18 Not significant
Pros-Aide 30.98 3.15 31.32 2.59 1.10 Not significant
Time 27.02 0.40 30.18 0.90 11.70 5.6
Nail pol rem 28.84 2.85 29.94 0.12 3.81 Not significant
Cosmetics 30.52 3.83 27.44 3.11 -10.09 Not significant
Secure adh 31.80 3.44 24.74 0.98 -22.20 -4.4

A-102 Weathering 39.14 1.72 44.36 1.07 13.34 5.8

Time 39.36 0.72 42.08 0.51 6.91 6.9
Alcohol 38.60 1.00 41.82 1.24 9.69 4.5
Nail pol rem 37.36 1.71 41.10 0.45 2.03 4.7
Cosmetics 39.86 1.43 40.62 0.72 1.91 Not significant
Pros-Aide 35.86 1.85 38.88 1.60 8.42 2.8
Secure adh 38.20 1.50 37.14 1.37 -2.77 Not significant

Epithane-3 Secure adh 49.44 2.32 47.06 2.26 -4.81 Not significant
Time 43.74 4.84 46.78 5.11 6.95 Not significant
Cosmetics 43.38 3.38 45.90 4.18 5.81 Not significant
Weathering 46.80 0.73 44.04 0.95 -5.90 5.2
Pros-Aide 41.22 5.42 38.64 5.94 -6.26 Not significant
Nail pol rem 48.08 1.88 37.44 3.73 -22.13 5.7
Alcohol 48.32 1.96 37.24 3.76 -24.42 5.8

A-2186 Pros-Aide 23.74 0.41 30.16 0.13 27.04 33.4

Weathering 22.36 0.38 29.33 0.30 31.22 32.1
Time 23.38 0.54 28.94 0.34 24.21 19.8
Nail pol rem 23.72 0.53 28.68 0.33 20.91 17.8
Cosmetics 22.80 0.40 28.60 0.62 25.44 17.6
Alcohol 22.90 0.37 28.14 0.35 22.88 23.0
Secure adh 21.02 0.31 21.92 0.48 -4.28 3.5

Critical value 2.776; (p < 0.05).

and further investigation into this finding is needed along tested swelled to approximately twice their original dimen-
with potentially advantageous applications of this phe- sions while immersed in Secure Adhesive material, whereas
nomenon. Epithane-3 material seemed unaffected. None of the ma-
An interesting observation made in this study is not terials swelled or otherwise changed in appearance when
readily apparent from the data. All five silicone materials exposed to Pros-Aide adhesive. Epithane-3 materialswelled

650 OCTOBER 1992 VOLUME 66 NUMBER 4

PROPERTIES OF MAXILLOFACIAL ELASTOMERS: III
to twice the original dimension and became visibly discol-
ored while immersed in nail polish remover, but all silicones
were unaffected. In all instances, the swelling occurred
within 24 hours of placement in the treatment agents.
When the swollen materials were removed, they were
extremely fragile, were an opaque white color, and several
specimens were broken in the process of cleaning.
The cleaned specimens were left on the laboratory bench
overnight in preparation for testing, and’ by the next
morning they had shrunk to their original size and color,
except the Epithane-3 material. According to the data, the
swelling and shrinking process did not seem to affect prop-
erties significantly. Perhaps the solvent in the Secure Ad-
hesive material, 1, 1, l-trichloroethane, has a substantial
effect in the swelling process. This solvent was used by Yu
et all*, l5 in a solvent-extraction process developed for
cleaning facial prostheses. The process involves swelling
the silicone in the solvent for 2 days with constant stirring,
then placing it in methanol and drying it to constant weight
under vacuum. The causative agent involved in swelling the
Epithane-3 material has not been determined.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Four currently used maxillofacial materials and two re-
cently introduced materials were subjected to seven envi-
ronmental variables: natural weathering, normal aging, two
types of adhesives, two types of cleaning solvents, and a
cosmetic facial cream. The following conclusions were
made:
1. The ideal single material for fabrication of external
prostheses has not been found. None of the materials tested
in this study met all of the criteria established by Lewis et
a1.g in 1980.
2. Silastic 4-4515 was the strongest material tested, fol-
lowed closely by A-2186 and 4-4210. A-102 was the weak-
est material. Type A Medical Adhesive material was least
affected by the environmental variables tested and Epith-
ane-3 was affected the most.
3. The environmental variables tested produced inter-
esting changes in some of the materials. The marked
increase in tensile and tear strength of the Silastic 4-4210
material treated with cosmetics and the swelling of Epith-
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
ane-3 material in nail polish remover should be further in-
vestigated.
4. Additional research is needed to develop new materi-
als or composites and laminates of existing materials that
emphasize the best properties of each component material.
5. ADA testing specifications and criteria for certifica-
tion of materials should be established.
REFERENCES
1. Andres CJ, Haug SP, Munoz CA, Bernal G. Effect of environmental
factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part I. Literature review. J PROS-
THET DENT 1992;68:32’7-30.
2. Andres CJ, Haug SP, Brown DT, Bernal G. Effect of environmental
factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part II. Survey of currently used
elastomers. J PROSTHETDENT 1992;68:519-22.
American National Standards ASTM No 412. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1981, part 37.
American National Standards ASTM No. 624. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials, 198l;part 37.
American National Standards ASTM No. 2240. Philadelphia, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1981; part 37.
Lewis DH, Cowper DR, Castleberry DJ: Fischer TE. New and improved
elastomers for extraoral maxillofacial prostheses [Abstract]. J Dent Res
1977;56(Special Issue A):174.
7. Moore DJ, Glaser ZR, Tabacco MJ, Linebaugh MGJ. Evaluation of
polymeric materials for maxillofacial prosthetics. J PROSTHET DENT
1977;38:319-26.
8. Lewis DH, Castleberry DJ. An assessment of recent advances in max-
illofacial prosthetic materials. J PROSTHETDENT 1980;43:426-32.
9. Craig RG, Koran A, Yu R. Elastomers for maxillofacial application. Bi-
omaterials 1980;1:112-7.
10. Lontz JF, Schweiger JW, Burger AW. Modifying stress strain profiles
of polysiloxane elastomers for improved maxillofacial conformity [Ab-
stract]. J Dent Res 1974;53 (Special Issue):890.
11. Koran A, Craig RG. Dynamic mechanical properties of maxillofacial
materials. J Dent Res 1975;54:216-21.
12. Wiens JP. A comparative study of selected elastomers subjected to ac-
celerated and outdoor weathering [Thesis]. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, 1980, 183 pp.
13. Yu R, Koran A, Craig RG. Physical properties of maxillofacial elas-
tomersunder conditions of accelerated aging. J Dent Res 1980;59:1041-7.
14. Yu R, Koran A, Raptis CN, Craig RG. Stain removal from a silicone
maxillofacial elastomer. J Dent Res 1981;60:1754-8.
15. Yu R, Koran A, Raptis CN, Craig RG. Cigarette staining and cleaning
of a maxillofacial silicone. J Dent Res 1983;62:853-5.
Reprint requests to:
DR. STEVENP. HAUG
DEPARTMENT OFPROSTHODONTES
INDIANAUNIVERSITY SCHOOL
OFDENTISTRY
1121 WEST MICHIGAN ST.
INDIANAPOLIS,
IN 46202
651