The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2024
Mechanical properties of tissue adhesives used for retaining extraoral silicone prostheses in maxillofacial defects: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
J L Jaini, V Manju, Rangasamy Jayakumar, Ramanarayanan Venkitachalam, Nair Priya K
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Different tissue adhesives are available for retaining extraoral silicone prostheses in maxillofacial defects. Comparative assessment of their mechanical properties will help the clinician select the right product for a specific clinical situation, but a systematic review is lacking.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the existing data in the literature regarding 5 mechanical properties of tissue adhesives for extraoral silicone prostheses: peel strength, tensile strength, shear strength, torsional strength, and tack.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A manual and electronic search was performed in appropriate databases to identify relevant publications with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The retrieved studies were screened for eligibility using the title, abstract, and published full texts. To evaluate the risk of bias, a methodological quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for Randomized Controlled Trials. A custom data extraction template was used, and the results pooled using descriptive methods.
RESULTS: After screening, 15 articles, 5 in vitro studies, and 10 clinical studies were eligible for data extraction. In vitro studies assessed tack and peel bond strength. In contrast, clinical studies assessed peel strength, tensile strength, shear strength, and torsional strength through direct comparisons and in diverse settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessed studies showed considerable methodological heterogeneity. When silicone-based tissue adhesives (Secure2 Medical Adhesive; Factor II, Hollister Colostomy Adhesive; Hollister Inc, Dow Corning 355 Medical adhesives; Dow Corning Europe Inc) were compared with water-based adhesives (Pros-Aide Adhesive; ADM Tronics Inc, PSA 1; Cosmedica Ltd, Daro adhesive; Factor II, Epithane-3; Daro Products), the silicone-based adhesives showed a higher peel bond strength (PBS), while double-sided medical adhesive tapes showed lower PBS. A few studies evaluated variations in the PBS as being affected by the addition of stone wool fibers, immersion in water, application of skin protective dressings and adhesive removers, application of multiple layers of adhesive, and usage of urethane liner.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the existing data in the literature regarding 5 mechanical properties of tissue adhesives for extraoral silicone prostheses: peel strength, tensile strength, shear strength, torsional strength, and tack.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A manual and electronic search was performed in appropriate databases to identify relevant publications with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The retrieved studies were screened for eligibility using the title, abstract, and published full texts. To evaluate the risk of bias, a methodological quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for Randomized Controlled Trials. A custom data extraction template was used, and the results pooled using descriptive methods.
RESULTS: After screening, 15 articles, 5 in vitro studies, and 10 clinical studies were eligible for data extraction. In vitro studies assessed tack and peel bond strength. In contrast, clinical studies assessed peel strength, tensile strength, shear strength, and torsional strength through direct comparisons and in diverse settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The assessed studies showed considerable methodological heterogeneity. When silicone-based tissue adhesives (Secure2 Medical Adhesive; Factor II, Hollister Colostomy Adhesive; Hollister Inc, Dow Corning 355 Medical adhesives; Dow Corning Europe Inc) were compared with water-based adhesives (Pros-Aide Adhesive; ADM Tronics Inc, PSA 1; Cosmedica Ltd, Daro adhesive; Factor II, Epithane-3; Daro Products), the silicone-based adhesives showed a higher peel bond strength (PBS), while double-sided medical adhesive tapes showed lower PBS. A few studies evaluated variations in the PBS as being affected by the addition of stone wool fibers, immersion in water, application of skin protective dressings and adhesive removers, application of multiple layers of adhesive, and usage of urethane liner.