Comparative Evaluation of Tear Strength of Two Platinum-Based Maxillofacial Silicone Materials: Siloczest LSR With and Without the Addition of 2.5% Zinc Oxide (ZnO) Nanoparticles and Technovent (m511)—An In Vitro Study

TL;DR

This study compares the tear strength of two platinum-based silicones for facial prosthetics, finding that adding zinc oxide nanoparticles slightly reduces performance.

Contribution

The study evaluates a new indigenous silicone material and tests the effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on tear strength in maxillofacial applications.

Findings

Siloczest LSR had significantly higher tear strength than Technovent M511.

Adding 2.5% ZnO nanoparticles reduced tear strength slightly in Siloczest LSR.

Zinc oxide nanoparticles did not reinforce the silicone material effectively.

Abstract

The present study aims to evaluate and compare the tear strength of an indigenous platinum-based maxillofacial silicone material (Siloczest LSR [Liquid Silicone Rubber]) with and without the incorporation of 2%–2.5% zinc oxide nanoparticles, using an imported platinum-based silicone material (Technovent M511) as the benchmark control.

Sixty-six unnicked 90° angle specimens (ASTM D624 [American Society for Material and Testing)) were fabricated and divided into three groups: Group A—Siloczest LSR without zinc oxide nanoparticles; Group B—Siloczest LSR with 2.5% zinc oxide nanoparticles; and Group C (control)—Technovent M511. Tear strength was evaluated using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM), and results were statistically analysed to compare the performance of the materials.

Siloczest LSR showed significantly higher tear strength (22.64 N/mm) than Technovent (10.08 N/mm, p < 0.001). The addition of 2.5% ZnO nanoparticles reduced tear strength to 20.54 N/mm (p < 0.05), indicating no reinforcement benefit.

Siloczest LSR, an indigenous platinum-based maxillofacial silicone, exhibited higher tear strength than the imported Technovent material, supporting its potential use in clinical prosthetic applications as a cost-effective maxillofacial material. However, the addition of 2.5% zinc oxide nanoparticles did not improve tear strength and led to a slight reduction. These results highlight the need for further investigation into nanoparticle concentration and dispersion methods to optimize reinforcement without compromising the material's mechanical integrity and clinical validation.

Figures