Journal of Dentistry
Volume 37, Supplement 1 , Pages e45-e50, 2009

Influence of pigments and opacifiers on color stability of silicone maxillofacial elastomer

  • Sudarat Kiat-amnuay

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, 6516 M.D. Anderson Blvd, Suite 493, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Tel.: +1 713 500 4194; fax: +1 713 500 4108.
  • ,
  • Meghan Beerbower

      Affiliations

    • Temple University, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, USA
  • ,
  • John M. Powers

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA
  • ,
  • Rade D. Paravina

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA

Received 9 March 2009; received in revised form 8 April 2009; accepted 5 May 2009. published online 15 May 2009.

Abstract 

Objectives

To determine the effects of opacifiers and silicone pigments on the color stability of silicone A-2000 maxillofacial prosthetic elastomers subjected to artificial aging.

Methods

Seventy-five groups (n=5) were made by various combinations (5%, 10%, and 15%) of four dry earth opacifiers (Georgia kaolin, Gk; calcined kaolin, Ck; Artskin white, Aw; titanium white dry pigment, Td); and 1 silicone pigment white (Sw) with one of 5 silicone pigments (no pigment (control), red (Pr), yellow (Py), burnt sienna (Po), and a mixture of Pr+Py+Po). A reflection spectrophotometer was used for color measurements. Color differences (ΔE*) between baseline and after an energy exposure of 450kJ/m2 in an artificial aging chamber were calculated. A ΔE*=3.0 was used as 50:50% acceptability threshold in result interpretation, while ΔE*=1.1 was used as 50:50% perceptibility threshold. Means were compared by Fisher's PLSD intervals at the 0.05 level of significance. Color differences after aging were subjected to three-way analysis of variance.

Results

Yellow ochre mixed with all opacifiers at all intervals had increased ΔE* values significantly from 0.7–2.1 up to 3.8–10.3. When mixed groups were considered, at 5%, Gk exhibited the smallest color changes, followed by Td<Aw=Sw<Ck, respectively. At 10%, Aw<Td<Gk<Sw=Ck. At 15%, Td<Aw<Gk=Sw<Ck (< indicates p<0.0001 and = indicates p>0.05). The smallest color differences, observed for opacifier groups, were recorded for Gk at 5%, and Td and Aw at 10% and 15%. Overall, 15% Td exhibited the smallest, whereas 5% Ck exhibited the most pronounced color change after artificial aging. All ΔE* values were below the 50:50% acceptability threshold, indicating acceptable color stability. Color differences for 10% and 15% of Aw and Td were below 50:50% perceptibility thresholds, indicating excellent color stability.

Conclusion

Silicone pigments mixed with 10% and 15% Artskin white and titanium white dry pigment opacifiers protected silicone A-2000 from color degradation over time. Yellow silicone pigment significantly affected color stability of all opacifiers especially silicone pigment white and calcined kaolin.

Keywords: Color stability, Silicone A-2000, Maxillofacial prosthetics, Silicone elastomer, Facial prosthesis, Color differences (ΔE*), Artificial aging

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was presented at 84th Annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research, Brisbane, Australia, 28 June to 1 July 2006.

PII: S0300-5712(09)00108-0

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.004

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 37, Supplement 1 , Pages e45-e50, 2009