PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

Logo of jcdrAbout UsAuthor ServicesArchiveSubmitJCDR
 
From:
Published online 2014 December 5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9229.5244

[Table/Fig-2]:

Summery of studies conducted in silicones

S.noName of author (year)Study conductedMaterials usedConclusion
1.Andreopoulos et al., (1994) [17]Effect of fillers on the mechanical properties (tensile strength and modulous) of poly(dimethyl siloxane) rubber (C-50, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) maxillofacial material.-Silica -Fiber fillers (Short aramid fibers, glass fibers, high modulus polyethylene fibers).Instead of Ultra high modulus fibers silica fillers should be used.
2.JH Lai et al., (1996) [5]Invention of Polysiloxane aterials including methacry oxyalkyl-terminated olydimethylsiloxanes (MPDS) to reduces the ydrophobicity of silicones.Modification of polydimethylsiloxanes. Thermal initiator- Lauroyl peroxide preferred over benzoyl peroxide. Filler - Amorphous silica. Crosslinker- XA-Ol, TEGDMA. Thermal curing of the polysiloxane MPDS was conducted in a stainless steel mold to minimize the effects of oxygen inhibition.MPDS has following advantages over MDX4-4210: - Very long working time. - Extended shelf life- - Higher in tear and tensile strength - Incorporation of metharylate group in the silicones reduces the hydrophobicity of the silicones enhances the adhesive bond strength to the non- silicone based adhesives. However the ultimate elongation is slightly lower than that of MDX4-4210.
3.Andreopoulos et al., (1998) [18]Effect of reinforcement of silica powder up to 50- percent concentration on the mechanical properties of silicone maxillofacial materials.Silica powder up to 50% concentration.Tensile strength improved with increasing silica fillers up to 35% significantly.
4.JH Lai et al., (2002) [15]Introduction of new organosilicone MPDS- MF 606Modified Methacry loxyalkyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxanes (MPDS) and comparing the properties with A-2186The hardness is similar to A-2186 whereas Tear, tensile strength, ultimate elongation and adhesive bond to non- silicones are higher than A-2186. Suitable for use in fabrication of clinical prosthesis.
5.Aziz et al., (2003) [19]Effect of different parameters on the development of new improved maxillofacial material C50.Silica fillers- R104, R106, R202, R972, R974, and R812. Silica filler concentrations- 0 - 25 wt%. Cross-linker concentration- 0.12 g- 0.72 g (per 10 g of base polymer). Ratio of high and low molecular weight polymers.Increasing the R812 silica filler concentration from 15 wt% to20 wt% and having cross-linker of 0.28 percent was associated with significant increase in tear strength.
6.Karayazgan et al., (2003) [20]Effect of tulle in increasing the tear strength of maxillofacial prosthesis at the edges.TulleTulle resulted in having more stable, and tear resistant silicone prosthesis which is less likely to deform during application or removal of adhesives, cosmetics or cleaning agents.
7.Tariq Aziz et al., (2003) [7]Analysis of the properties of commonly used silicone rubber materials.-Cosmesil HC and Nusil (MED-4920) -Prestige (Premium facial and body elastomer) -Factor II (A 2186)None of the commercially available materials have adequate properties. Cosmesil HC and Nusil (MED-4920) had adequate mechanical properties along with good translucency but have high viscosity. Prestige (Premium facial and body elastomer) was a soft material however together with Cosmesil St it had extremely high water absorption and low tears strength. Factor II (A 2186) had well all round mechanical properties and had the highest tear strength.
8.Gunay et al., (2008) [21]Investigation on the incorporation of tulle in silicone maxillofacial prosthesis.TulleTensile and tear strengths were significantly higher.
9.Mirabedini et al., (2008) [22]Effect of TiO2 on the mechanical and adhesion properties of RTV silicone elastomer coatings.TiO2 fillers-5.0 wt%, 10.0 wt%, 15.0 wt% and 20.0 wt%.Tensile stress, modulus, and abrasion resistance increased with increasing the filler content up to 15.9 wt%. Hardness was increased with increasing filler contents up to 25.0 wt%, but on the contrary, elongation to fracture was decreased with increasing filler content.
10.Sharif A. Mohammad et al., (2010) [12]Effect of POSS on the mechanical properties, of maxillofacial material (Factor II A- 2000).POSS - pohedral silsesquioxaneThe POSS loading had a significant effect on the tear and tensile properties of the materials.
11.Liu Q, Shao LQ et al., (2013) [23]Effect of silicone elastomers filled with hollow microspheres.Hollow microspheres were mixed with MDX4-4210 silicone elastomer using Q7-9180 silicone fluid as diluents. Volume fractions of microspheres were 0, 5, 15, and 30% v/v (volume ratio to the total volume of MDX4-4210 and microspheres) were used.The microspheres dispersed well in the matrix. Shock absorption was the greatest by the 5% v/v composite, and decreased with increasing concentrations of microspheres. Other properties except elongation at break decreased with increasing concentration. Tear strength of all composites was markedly lower than that of pure silicone elastomer. Has good biocompatibility. Novel light and soft material with good flexibility, biocompatibility and properties at 5% holds a promising prospect for clinical application as maxillofacial prosthesis.