
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.66484
Dentistry
Quality Improvement
Healthcare Technology
The Effect of Chemical Disinfectants on Maxillofacial Silicone With the Addition of Silver Nanoparticles: An Original Research
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Pathak Vedant 1
Kambala Seema R 1
Jaiswal Tanvi 1
Bhoyar Anjali 1
Dhamande Mithilesh 1
1 Prosthodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
Vedant Pathak dtnt09@gmail.com
8 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e664843 7 2024
8 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Pathak et al.
2024
Pathak et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/273842-the-effect-of-chemical-disinfectants-on-maxillofacial-silicone-with-the-addition-of-silver-nanoparticles-an-original-research
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.

surface roughness
shore a hardness
color stability
silver nanoparticles
maxillofacial silicone
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Since its introduction in 1960, silicone has become the most popular and clinically approved material for the creation of facial prostheses thanks to its biocompatibility, physical and mechanical qualities, and ease of manipulation. Patients feel comfortable and well-cared for because of its texture, which is similar to human skin [1]. Nevertheless, silicone materials have certain drawbacks, such as a shorter lifespan brought on by color instability and early deterioration, which alter the texture and cause edges to fit poorly and lose tear strength. As nanotechnology has advanced, elastomers have been strengthened by the addition of nanoparticles. Because of their higher surface-area-to-volume ratio, nanoparticles differ from their macroparticle counterparts in terms of physical, chemical, and biological properties [2].

Silver nanoparticles incorporated in silicone maxillofacial material have been used to serve as antifungal agents and demonstrate biocompatibility, yet their impact on material physical, mechanical properties, and color stability remains inadequately tested [3,4]. Therefore, this present study was carried out to evaluate the effect of chemical disinfectants on color stability, hardness, and surface roughness of maxillofacial silicone, after the addition of silver nanoparticles.

Materials and methods

The research was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital. Materials used included maxillofacial silicone (M 511 room temperature vulcanizing silicone, Factor II Inc, Technovent limited, 5 York Park, Bridgend UK) and silver nanoparticles (2%w/w, Ultrananotech, Bangalore, India). Chemical disinfectants included 1% sodium hypochlorite, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, and neutral soap. All samples were fabricated as per specification by using a customized mold.

Materials

The following tools were also used: a double-beam UV-visible spectrometer for measuring spectral reflectance in the visible range of wavelengths 200-800 nm; an ultraviolet reflectance spectrometer (Labman Scientific Instruments, Chennai, India) for color stability; a durometer (MGW Precision Shore A Hardness Tester Durometer, MGW Precision, Mumbai, India) for Shore A hardness; and a digital roughness tester (portable surface roughness tester, Surftest SJ-410 Series, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan) for surface roughness.

Methodology

Fabrication of Samples

A customized metal mold was fabricated, which comprises 10 slots each of dimension 3 x 10 mm. Dispensation of a 10:1 W/w ratio of base and catalyst of RTV maxillofacial silicone (i.e., 10 grams of part A and 1 gram of part B) was done. To create the test specimens, silicone elastomer and silver nanoparticles were combined with elastomer primer (part B). Nano powder, with a concentration of 20 ppm, was added, mixed in a glass beaker, and placed in an ultrasonic vibrator to ensure that the nanoparticles were distributed properly. Per the manufacturer's instructions, part B of the elastomer material was then combined with part A. Careful spatulation for 10 minutes was done as per the manufacturer's recommendation to obtain a uniform mix free of air bubbles. Disc-shaped samples were fabricated, which comprised silver nanoparticles (20ppm), and maxillofacial silicone (10:1) was formulated.

The formulated material was then packed into the custom-made metal mold and the mold was covered with a lid and tightened with screws and kept for 24 hours; 100 samples were fabricated and 80 error-free samples were selected. They were classified into four groups according to the disinfectant used for the study: 20 samples each in sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine gluconate, neutral soap, and distilled water). The samples were then tested for all the parameters: surface roughness, Shore A hardness, and color stability. The categorized samples were immersed in the disinfectants with 20 samples in each group. After 48 hours of immersion, the samples underwent retesting to assess for changes in readings under the same parameters to obtain results.

Testing of the samples

The following tests were conducted on the samples: surface roughness, Shore A Hardness, and color stability.

A portable digital roughness tester (Surftest SJ-410 Series, Mitutoyo) with a measurement course of 6 mm and an accuracy of 0.01 µm was utilized for the surface roughness test. As opposed to the Shore, rubber materials are subjected to a hardness test that is carried out in compliance with ASTM D2240 standards. For soft vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomers, a durometer is usually used. On the other hand, a spectrophotometer was used to collect data on color changes (∆E), which were ascertained from the samples' initial and final reflectance values by the spectrometer. A UV filter was set to 100% UV and a tungsten lamp with D50 standard illumination was used with a 2° viewing angle.

Following that, for a full 48 hours, every sample from the four groups (sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine gluconate, neural soap, and distilled water) was submerged in the aforementioned disinfecting solutions. Samples were retested for each of the three parameters - surface roughness, Shore A hardness, and color stability -after disinfection. To simulate a year of clinical use, the silicone specimens were disinfected for 48 hours using various types of disinfecting agents; 48 hours over 360 days is equal to eight minutes of treatment per day. Thus, the samples were subjected to a 48-hour immersion in a disinfecting solution as part of the chemical disinfection process.

The findings were documented and the comparison was done between initial and final values of surface roughness, Shore A hardness, and color stability. Intergroup comparison was also done between various disinfectants (1% sodium hypochlorite, 0.2% chlorhexidine, neutral soap, and distilled water).

Results

A comparison of initial surface roughness showed a non-significant difference among the four groups (Table 1). The final surface roughness evaluation showed a maximum roughness value in the sodium hypochlorite group and the lowest roughness value in distilled water. The difference in the final surface roughness of the four groups was significant (Figure 1).

Table 1 Comparison of the initial and final surface roughness (Ra) among the four groups

*Statistically significant

NS: not significant

Group	Initial (N=20)	Final (N=20)	
Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Sodium hypochlorite	0.698	0.133	0.952	0.132	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	0.696	0.159	0.813	0.163	
Neutral soap	0.687	0.126	0.758	0.134	
Distilled water	0.719	0.157	0.719	0.157	
P-value	0.909 (NS)	<0.001*	

Figure 1 Comparison of the initial and final surface roughness (Ra) among the four groups

NaOCl: sodium hypochlorite

The results of the magnitude of change in the surface roughness value (in %) from the initial to final phase in each group are presented in Table 2. Except for distilled water, surface roughness value showed an increase in all the other three groups with sodium hypochlorite showing the highest increase (38.36%). The difference in the magnitude of change in the surface roughness value (in %) from the initial to final phase among the four groups was significant.

Table 2 Comparison of the change in surface roughness (in %) among the four groups

*Statistically significant

Group	Mean % change	Std. Deviation	P-value	
Sodium hypochlorite	38.359	15.104	<0.001*	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	17.650	7.154	
Neutral soap	10.738	5.558	
Distilled water	0.000	0.000	

The comparison of initial Shore A hardness showed a non-significant difference among the four groups(Table 3). Final Shore A hardness evaluation showed a maximum hardness value in the sodium hypochlorite group and the least hardness value in distilled water. The difference in the final surface hardness among the four groups was significant (Figure 2).

Table 3 Comparison of the initial and final Shore A hardness among the four groups

*Statistically significant

NS: not significant

Group	Initial (N=20)	Final (N=20)	
Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Sodium hypochlorite	25.450	3.000	29.400	3.102	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	25.550	3.017	28.200	3.054	
Neutral soap	25.500	3.517	27.400	3.378	
Distilled water	25.500	3.887	26.050	4.045	
P-value	1.000 (NS)	0.022*	

Figure 2 Comparison of the initial and final Shore A hardness among the four groups

NaOCl: sodium hypochlorite

The results of the magnitude of change in the Shore A hardness value (in %) from the initial to the final phase in each group are presented in Table 4. The Shore A hardness value showed an increase in all the groups with sodium hypochlorite showing the highest increase (15.78%). The difference in the magnitude of change in the Shore A hardness value (in %) from the initial to final phase among the four groups was significant. 

Table 4 Comparison of the change in Shore A hardness among the four groups

*Statistically significant

Group	Mean	Std. Deviation	P-value	
Sodium hypochlorite	15.780	4.625	<0.001*	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	10.566	3.933	
Neutral soap	7.659	3.566	
Distilled water	2.125	2.320	

A comparison of initial color values showed a non-significant difference among the four groups (Table 5). Similarly, a comparison of final color values showed a non-significant difference among the four groups (Figure 3).

Table 5 Comparison of the initial and final color values among the four groups

NS: not significant

Group	Initial (N=20)	Final (N=20)	
Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Sodium hypochlorite	0.605	0.084	0.619	0.081	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	0.609	0.068	0.607	0.071	
Neutral soap	0.586	0.060	0.596	0.053	
Distilled water	0.624	0.085	0.622	0.080	
P-value	0.591 (NS)	0.828 (NS)	

Figure 3 Comparison of the initial and final color values among the four groups

NaOCl: sodium hypochlorite

The magnitude of change in color values (in %) among the four groups is presented in Table 6. The maximum increase in color values was seen in the sodium hypochlorite group followed by the neutral soap group; the chlorhexidine gluconate group showed a maximum decrease in color value from the initial to the final phase. The difference in the magnitude of change in color values (in %) among the four groups was significant. 

Table 6 Comparison of the change in color values among the four groups

*Statistically significant

Group	Mean	Std. Deviation	P-value	
Sodium hypochlorite	2.414	4.727	0.034*	
Chlorhexidine gluconate	-0.287	1.511	
Neutral soap	1.653	3.414	
Distilled water	-0.197	2.772	

Discussion

Maxillofacial prostheses offer an alternative treatment option when surgical correction of maxillofacial defects is not feasible. Maxillofacial prosthetic materials are increasingly being used to treat functional and cosmetic deficiencies in patients with significant facial defects [5-7]. Maxillofacial materials must resemble human tissues regarding their mechanical and physical characteristics. These materials should maintain these characteristics for the entirety of their lifespan [8-10]. Key properties of maxillofacial materials include high color stability, minimal surface roughness change, and Shore A hardness.

Because silicone elastomers are clinically inert, strong, durable, easily manipulable, and have an adequate bond to underlying materials, they are currently the material of choice for maxillofacial prostheses. Silicone offers several benefits, including enhanced patient comfort, durability, ease of coloring and manipulation, strength, and a texture that almost exactly resembles human tissue [11,12]. However, silicone's quick deterioration of physical properties and unstable color are the reasons for its short shelf life in maxillofacial prostheses. Its difficult repair procedure also prevents it from being extensively used in this industry [13]. For example, it might have different textures and uneven edges due to the decreased tear strength.

The modifications are directly influenced by the patient's hygiene, handling practices, cleaning supplies, and the kinds of exposures the prosthesis receives, including temperature changes, UV and solar radiation, moisture, air pollution, and climate changes. The interactions between silica fillers, polymer chains, and the environment may be impacted during service, necessitating prosthesis replacement [14-16]. Various strategies are employed to halt this degradation of the polymer [17,18]. One of the main areas of advancing science, nanotechnology, has witnessed a recent trend involving the use of nanoparticles. Because of their high surface-to-volume ratio, nanoparticles have different physical, chemical, and biological properties from their macroparticle counterparts.

This study looks at how different chemical disinfectants affect the color stability, Shore A hardness, and surface roughness of maxillofacial silicone that contains silver nanoparticles. All samples were treated with silver nanoparticles and then subjected to various disinfectants: distilled water (as the control group), sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine gluconate, and neutral soap. To simulate a year of clinical use, the silicone specimens were disinfected for 48 hours using various types of disinfecting agents; 48 hours over 360 days is equal to eight minutes of treatment per day. Thus, the samples were subjected to a 48-hour immersion in a disinfecting solution as part of the chemical disinfection process [19-22].

The sodium hypochlorite group had the highest surface roughness value (mean change: 38.359%) in the current study, while the neutral soap group had the lowest roughness value. Except for distilled water, all groups had a rise in the percentage of surface roughness change from the initial to the final phase; sodium hypochlorite showed the largest increase (38.36%). This study supports the 2009 findings of Goiato et al., which indicate that increased roughness is not related to chemical disinfectants but rather results from the material's high filler content [23]. As a result, nanoparticles increase the filler content as well. On the other hand, our results contradict those of Babu et al. [24], who reported that sample surface roughness decreased following the disinfection period. The following samples were used in their research: neutral soap, accelerated aging, 4% chlorhexidine, and FittyDent tablets.

In this study, a pairwise comparison of initial and final Shore A hardness among the four groups showed a significant increase in the final Shore A hardness value in the sodium hypochlorite group (mean change: 15.78%), followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate group (10.566%), and neutral soap group (7.659%). Our findings align with the findings of Lanzara et al. (2019) [25], Guiotti et al. [26], Guiotti et al. [27], Babu et al. [24], and others, which propose that enhanced cross-linking of polymeric chains and ongoing polymerization processes cause hardness to rise. Guiotti et al. attributed the increased hardness to the evaporation of volatile by-products [27]. Compared to the group that did not receive disinfection, our study shows significant differences, which contrast with the findings of Goiato et al. (2009) [23]. We discovered that the physical characteristics of the material, such as increased absorption and solubility, could be harmed by chemical cleaning agents, particularly when samples are submerged in a sodium hypochlorite solution.

The prosthesis's lifespan is limited by silicone elastomer color degradation, which frequently requires the creation of a new prosthesis within six months to a year [28,29]. Certain environmental factors like temperature, exposure to water, and sun radiation can cause early color deterioration. Initial tests in the current study revealed no significant differences between any of the four groups, and the final results also revealed no significant differences in color value between any of the groups. However, the sodium hypochlorite group showed the greatest color instability (mean change: 7.659%), with the neutral soap group showing the least amount of instability (1.653%). In contrast, the group exposed to chlorhexidine gluconate showed very little color instability (-0.287%) from the first to the last phase. The results were similar to those of distilled water, which acted as a control group.

The surface properties of polymers can be linked to changes in color and hardness, which could result in the release of particular compounds into water or disinfectant solutions from the polymer matrix. Chemical disinfectants react with silicone, causing elastomer breakdown and chain bond disruption that compromises color stability. The results of our investigation support the findings of Hatamleh et al.'s study [30], which also highlights related effects on color stability. The color shift that was noticed in the neutral soap after it was disinfected with hypochlorite might have resulted from the digital friction disinfection process, which was supposed to remove pigments (nanoparticles) from the material's outer layer.

Our study has a few limitations, primarily its observational, in-vitro design. Hence, we recommend in vivo studies to gain deeper insights into the topic. Further studies can be planned to evaluate other physical parameters like tensile strength, tear strength, etc.

Conclusions

Clinicians can gain valuable insights from our findings regarding the physical characteristics of maxillofacial silicone and how disinfection protocol affects it. Despite the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that sodium hypochlorite should not be used as a disinfectant for silicone maxillofacial prostheses because it increases surface hardness and roughness, which is surpassed by the neutral soap solution and chlorhexidine mouthwash. For color instability of the prosthesis, sodium hypochlorite ranks first followed by neutral soap solution. Furthermore, it is critical to consider the possibility that prolonged digital friction from using neutral soap could cause the prosthesis's surface to lose color. Patients should be advised against using neutral soap with scrubbing to disinfect a prosthesis.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue.

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Vedant Pathak, Seema R. Kambala, Tanvi Jaiswal, Anjali Bhoyar, Mithilesh Dhamande

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Vedant Pathak, Seema R. Kambala

Drafting of the manuscript:  Vedant Pathak, Seema R. Kambala, Tanvi Jaiswal, Anjali Bhoyar, Mithilesh Dhamande

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Vedant Pathak, Seema R. Kambala, Tanvi Jaiswal, Anjali Bhoyar, Mithilesh Dhamande

Supervision:  Seema R. Kambala, Tanvi Jaiswal, Anjali Bhoyar, Mithilesh Dhamande
==== Refs
References

1 Effect of surface treated silicon dioxide nanoparticles on some mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomer Int J Biomater Zayed SM Alshimy AM Fahmy AE 750398 2014 2014 25574170
2 Synthesis and applications of silver nanoparticles Arab J Chem Abou El-Nour KMM Eftaiha A Al-Warthan A Ammar RAA 135 140 3 2010
3 Effect of silver nanoparticle on properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomer material: an original research Int J Health Sci Gangadharappa P Rathore BS Yaqoob A Agrawal P Patri G Tejaswi CK Kommuri S 9994 10000 5 2022
4 Interactions of pigments and opacifiers on color stability of MDX4-4210/type A maxillofacial elastomers subjected to artificial aging J Prosthet Dent Kiat-Amnuay S Mekayarajjananonth T Powers JM Chambers MS Lemon JC 249 257 95 2006 16543024
5 An evaluation of facial prostheses J Prosthet Dent Jani RM Schaaf NG 546 550 39 1978 274548
6 Physical properties of maxillofacial elastomers under conditions of accelerated aging J Dent Res Yu R Koran A Craig RG 1041 1047 59 1980 6929289
7 An assessment of recent advances in external maxillofacial materials J Prosthet Dent Lewis DH Castleberry DJ 426 432 43 1980 6928481
8 Effect of disinfection and accelerated ageing on dimensional stability and detail reproduction of a facial silicone with nanoparticles J Med Eng Technol Pesqueira AA Goiato MC Dos Santos DM Haddad MF Moreno A 217 221 36 2012 22428808
9 Survey of currently used materials for fabrication of extraoral maxillofacial prostheses in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia J Prosthodont Montgomery PC Kiat-Amnuay S 482 490 19 2010 20002975
10 Maxillofacial prosthetic materials- an inclination towards silicones J Clin Diagn Res Mitra A Choudhary S Garg H Jagdish HG 0 13 8 2014
11 Silicones for facial prostheses Dent Pract Dent Rec Roberts AC 276 284 21 1971 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5281005/ 5281005
12 Analysis of the properties of silicone rubber maxillofacial prosthetic materials J Dent Aziz T Waters M Jagger R 67 74 31 2003 12615022
13 Materials and techniques in maxillofacial prosthodontic rehabilitation Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am Huber H Studer SP 73 93 14 2002 18088612
14 The use of RTV silicones in maxillofacial prosthetics J Prosthet Dent Kanter JC 646 653 24 1970 5273664
15 Influence of adding nanoparticles on the hardness, tear strength, and permanent deformation of facial silicone subjected to accelerated aging J Prosthet Dent Nobrega AS Andreotti AM Moreno A Sinhoreti MA Dos Santos DM Goiato MC 623 629 116 2016 27157603
16 Facial reconstruction by prosthetic means Br J Oral Surg Roberts AC 157 182 4 1967 5337543
17 Mechanical properties of a new facial prosthetic material J Prosthet Dent Wolfaardt JF Chandler HD Smith BA 228 234 53 1985 3856664
18 The history of nanoscience and nanotechnology: from chemical-physical applications to nanomedicine Molecules Bayda S Adeel M Tuccinardi T Cordani M Rizzolio F 4 6 25 2019 31861325
19 Nanoparticles used in dentistry: a review J Oral Biol Craniofac Res Priyadarsini S Mukherjee S Mishra M 58 67 8 2018 29556466
20 Applications of nanomaterials in dental science: a review J Nanosci Nanotechnol Sharan J Singh S Lale SV Mishra M Koul V Kharbanda P 2235 2255 17 2017 29638105
21 Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part I--literature review J Prosthet Dent Andres CJ Haug SP Munoz CA Bernal G 327 330 68 1992 1501184
22 Effect of different types of disinfection solution and aging on the hardness and colour stability of maxillofacial silicone elastomers Int J Artif Organs Cevik P Yildirim-Bicer AZ 42 44 9 2017
23 Evaluation of hardness and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicones following disinfection Braz Oral Res Goiato MC Pesqueira AA Santos DM Dekon SF 49 53 23 2009
24 Effect of chemical disinfectants and accelerated aging on maxillofacial silicone elastomers: an in vitro study Indian J Dent Res Babu AS Manju V Gopal VK 67 73 29 2018 29442090
25 Effect of disinfection on the physical properties of maxillofacial silicone material: a systematic review Paripex Indian J Res Lanzara R Mandamparambil V Kumar D 64 69 6 2022
26 Comparison of conventional and plant-extract disinfectant solutions on the hardness and color stability of a maxillofacial elastomer after artificial aging J Prosthet Dent Guiotti AM Goiato MC Dos Santos DM 501 508 115 2016 26602149
27 Evaluation of the Shore A hardness of silicone for facial prosthesis as to the effect of storage period and chemical disinfection J Craniofac Surg Guiotti AM Goiato MC dos Santos DM 323 327 21 2010 20186092
28 Effect of adding silver nanoparticle on physical and mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomer material-an in-vitro study J Prosthodont Res Sonnahalli NK Chowdhary R 431 435 64 2020 32063540
29 Quality-of-life outcomes in head and neck cancer patients World J Surg Morton RP Izzard ME 884 889 27 2003 14509523
30 Mechanical properties and bonding of maxillofacial silicone elastomers Dent Mater Hatamleh MM Watts DC 185 191 26 2010 19892390
