A spectrophotometric analysis of extraoral aging conditions on the color stability of maxillofacial silicone

• Main Authors: Siddharth Mehta, D B Nandeeshwar
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2017-01-01
• Series: The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
• Subjects: Color stability; disinfection; facial secretions; maxillofacial silicone elastomer; outdoor weathering; spectrophotometer
• Online Access: http://www.j-ips.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4052;year=2017;volume=17;issue=4;spage=355;epage=360;aulast=Mehta

Context: Surveys have reported color fading as the most frequent reasons patients given for disliking their prostheses. Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the color variation between two maxillofacial silicone elastomers after subjecting them to extraoral aging conditions. Subjects and Methods: A total of 80 samples were made from M511 Maxillofacial Rubber (Part A: Part B = 10:1) and Z004 Platinum Silicone Rubber (Part A: Part B = 1:1) and divided into two main Groups A and B (40 each). These main groups were then subdivided into five subgroups (A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, A4B4, and A5B5) (n = 8); outdoor weathering, acidic perspiration, sebum (for 6 months), and neutral soap and disinfectant (for 30 h), respectively. Baseline L*a*b* values were recorded. The samples were subjected to the extraoral aging conditions, and the L* a*b* values were recorded after the aging period using a spectrophotometer. Statistical Analysis: The intergroup comparison was done by Kruskal–Wallis test, whereas the intragroup comparison was done by Mann–Whitney test. Results: All groups exhibited visually detectable, mean color differences that ranged from 3.06–5.21, except for A4B4. There was no statistical significance between the two materials when subjected to extraoral aging conditions. Conclusions: Visually perceptible and clinically unacceptable color changes occur when exposed to various extraoral aging conditions except for neutral soap solution immersion, for which values of Δ E* were clinically acceptable (ΔE < 3). It can be said for all practical purposes, clinically, the choice between M511 Maxillofacial Rubber (Part A: Part B = 10:1) and Z004 Platinum Silicone Rubber (Part A: Part B = 1:1) would yield more or less the same results, with unacceptable norms in terms of color stability under extraoral aging conditions.