ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluation of rheological properties of soft lining materials with different composition under various temperatures.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the changes the rheological properties of some soft lining materials, to compare the rheological properties and viscoelastic behaviour at different temperatures. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive soft lining materials (acrylic and silicone based) were used. the storage modulus (G'), loss modulus (G"), tan delta (tan δ) and complex viscosity (η') were chosen and for each material, measurements were repeated at 23, 33 and 37 °C, using an oscillating rheometer. All data were statistically analyzed using the Mann Whitney U test, Kruskal Wallis test and Conover's Multiple Comparison test at the significance level of 0.05.
resultsSoft lining materials had different viscoelastic properties and most of the materials showed different rheological behavior at 23, 33 and 37 °C. At the end of the test (t¹5), at all the temperatures, Sofreliner Tough M had the highest storage modulus values while Visco Gel had the highest loss Tan delta values.
conclusionsThere were significant changes in the rheological parameters of all the materials. Also temperature affected the initial rheological properties, and polymerization reaction of all the materials, depending on temperature increase. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Temperature affected the initial rheological properties, and polymerization reaction of soft denture liner materials, and clinical inferences should be drawn from such studies conducted. It can be recommended to utilize viscoelastic acrylic-based temporary soft lining materials with lower storage modulus, higher tan delta value, and high viscosity in situations where pain complaint persists and tissue stress is extremely significant, provided that they are replaced often.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.