The Effect of Chemical Disinfectants on Maxillofacial Silicone With the Addition of Silver Nanoparticles: An Original Research

TL;DR

This study examines how different disinfectants affect silicone facial prostheses with silver nanoparticles, finding that some cause more damage than others.

Contribution

The study evaluates the impact of disinfectants on silicone with silver nanoparticles, providing new insights into material stability for facial prostheses.

Findings

Sodium hypochlorite caused the most changes in surface roughness and hardness.

Neutral soap led to the least changes in physical properties of the silicone.

Chlorhexidine gluconate preserved color stability best, making it suitable for aesthetic prostheses.

Abstract

Background and objective

Silicone has emerged as the most widely accepted material for facial prosthesis fabrication. However, silicone materials have certain limitations. Several techniques have been investigated to lessen the degradation of the polymer, such as the use of nanoparticles and nano-oxides, etc. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of various chemical disinfectants on color stability, hardness, and surface roughness of maxillofacial silicone, after the addition of silver nanoparticles.

Materials and methods

This was an in vitro study carried out in the Department of Prosthodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital; 80 samples of maxillofacial silicone incorporated with silver nanoparticles (in a concentration of 20 ppm) were fabricated in a mold of 3 x 10 mm dimension disc. The samples were then tested for surface roughness (using a digital roughness tester), Shore A hardness (using a durometer), and color stability (using a spectrophotometer). The samples were then classified into four groups according to various disinfectants used: sodium hypochlorite (1% w/w), chlorhexidine gluconate (0.2%), and neutral soap, and distal water was deemed the control group. After 48 hours, the samples underwent retesting to assess for changes in readings under the same parameters (i.e., surface roughness, Shore A hardness, and color stability) to obtain results, i.e., the samples were tested after fabrication, before immersion, and 48 hours after immersion in disinfectants.

Results

When taking into account the surface roughness, the maximum roughness value was observed in the sodium hypochlorite group and the least roughness value in distilled water (mean % change of 38.359 to negligible change in the distilled water group). As for the Shore A hardness, the maximum hardness value was seen in the sodium hypochlorite group and the least hardness value in distilled water (mean % change of 15.780 to 2.125 in distilled water). Regarding color stability, the maximum increase in color values was seen in the sodium hypochlorite group (mean: 2.4) followed by the neutral soap group (mean: 1.653); the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean: -0.287) showed the maximum decrease in color value from the initial to the final phase.

Conclusions

Based on our findings, surface roughness altered the most when samples were immersed in 1% sodium hypochlorite disinfectant and the least when samples were immersed in neutral soap disinfectant. Shore A hardness altered the most when samples were immersed in 1% sodium hypochlorite disinfectant, but altered the least when samples were immersed in neutral soap disinfectant. Color stability altered the most when samples were immersed in neutral soap disinfectant, but altered the least when samples were immersed in 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate. Disinfection with neutral soap seems to lead to fewer changes in physical properties (i.e., surface roughness and Shore A hardness) and hence is recommended as a disinfectant for silicone prosthesis. However, our study also showed that 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate had the least effect on the parameter of color stability, and hence it could be the disinfectant of choice for prostheses with high esthetic requirements.

Figures