The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Influence of Weather on Hardness and Surface Roughness of Maxillofacial Elastomeric Materials

Mohammed A Mousa

Citation Information : Mousa MA. Influence of Weather on Hardness and Surface Roughness of Maxillofacial Elastomeric Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (6):678-682.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2853

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aims: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of hot and dry weather on the hardness and surface roughness of four different maxillofacial silicone elastomeric materials (MFSEM) including two room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) and two high-temperature vulcanized (HTV) materials. Materials and methods: Eighty test specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions into rectangular test specimens. The hardness and surface roughness were tested, after 6 months of exposure to natural hot and dry weather. The hardness was measured through the International Rubber Hardness Degree (IRHD) scale using an automated hardness tester. The surface roughness was measured using a novel 3D optical noncontact technique using a combination of a light sectioning microscope and a computer vision system. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software SPSS/version 24 was used for analysis and a comparison between two independent variables was done using an independent t test, while more than two variables were analyzed, F test (ANOVA) to be used followed by a post hoc test to determine the level of significance between every two groups. Results: The hot and dry weather statistically influenced the hardness and surface roughness of MFSEM. Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hardness in test groups while A-2000 showed the hardest material (p < 0.05). A-2000 showed significant changes from rough in case of nonweathered to become smoother in weather followed by A-2186 (p < 0.05). Cosmesil M-511 showed the roughest material. Conclusion: Cosmesil M-511 showed the least hard MFSEM after outdoor weathering while A-2000, the highest and least material showed hardness and surface roughness, respectively. Clinical implication: A-2000 had a high IRHD scale hardness. This makes this material more suitable for the replacement of ear and nose defects. Cosmesil M-511 is soft and easily adaptable material that makes the material more appropriate for the replacement of small facial defect with undercut area to be easily inserted and removed. Whilst A-2000 is smoother and finer in test specimens after weathering, Cosmesil M-511 became rougher after weathering.

  1. Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Ramos da Silva C, et al. Patient satisfaction with maxillofacial prosthesis. Literature review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009;62(2):175–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.06.084.
  2. Farook TH, Mousa MA, Jamayet NB. Method to control tongue position and open source image segmentation for cone-beam computed tomography of patients with large palatal defect to facilitate digital obturator design. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol 2020;32:61–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2019.09.009.
  3. Schaaf NG, Casey DM, McLean T. Maxillofacial prosthetics. Essential of complete denture prosthodontics. 2nd ed., India: AITBS Publishers; 2004. p.412.
  4. Bellamy KE, Waters MG. Designing a prosthesis to simulate the elastic properties of skin. Biomed Mater Eng 2005;15:21–27.
  5. Huber H, Studer SP. Materials and techniques in maxillofacial prosthodontic rehabilitation. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2002;14(1):73–93. DOI: 10.1016/S1042-3699(02)00018-3.
  6. Begum Z, Kola MZ, Joshi P. Analysis of the properties of commercially available silicone elastomers for maxillofacial prostheses. Int J Contemp Dent 2011. 2.
  7. Lontz J. State-of-the-art materials used for maxillofacial prosthetic reconstruction. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34(2):307–325.
  8. Han Y, Zhao Y, Xie C, et al. Color stability of pigmented maxillofacial silicone elastomer: effects of nano-oxides as opacifiers. J Dent 2010;38(Suppl 2):e100–e105. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.009.
  9. Hatamleh MM, Watts DC. Mechanical properties and bonding of maxillofacial silicone elastomers. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):185–191. DOI: 10.1016/
  10. Eleni PN, Krokida M, Polyzois G, et al. Effects of outdoor weathering on facial prosthetic elastomers. Odontology 2011;99(1):68–76. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-010-0145-0.
  11. Beatty MW, Mahanna GK, Dick K, et al. Color changes in dry-pigmented maxillofacial elastomer resulting from ultraviolet light exposure. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(5):493–498. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80351-8.
  12. Polyzois GL, Tarantili PA, Frangou MJ, et al. Physical properties of a silicone prosthetic elastomer stored in simulated skin secretions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(5):572–577. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00) 70017-5.
  13. Mohite UH, Sandrik JL, Land MF, et al. Environmental factors affecting mechanical properties of facial prosthetic elastomers. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7(5):479–486.
  14. Andres CJ, Haug SP, Munoz CA, et al. Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: Part I—literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(2):327–330. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90339-C.
  15. Mousa MA, Lynch E, Sghaireen MG, et al. Influence of time and different tooth widths on masticatory efficiency and muscular activity in bilateral free-end saddles. Int Dent J 2017;67(1):29–37. DOI: 10.1111/idj.12256.
  16. Haug SP, Andres CJ, Munoz CA, et al. Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part IV—optical properties. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(5):820–823. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92) 90210-2.
  17. Mousa MA, Patil S, Lynch E. Masticatory efficiency and muscular activity in removable partial dental prostheses with different cusp angles. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(1):55–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.017.
  18. Ferreira A, Aras M, Chitre V, et al. Effect of the simulated Indian and mediterranean climates on the shore A hardness of maxillofacial silicone. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(4):305–313. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_197_18.
  19. Hatamleh MM, Watts DC. Effect of extraoral aging conditions on color stability of maxillofacial silicone elastomer. J Prosthodont 2010;19(7):536–543. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00627.x.
  20. Babu AS, Manju V, Gopal VK. Effect of chemical disinfectants and accelerated aging on maxillofacial silicone elastomers: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29(1):67–73. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_272_16.
  21. Allah JA, Muddhaffer M. Influence of artificial weathering on some properties of nano silicon dioxide incorporated into maxillofacial silicone. Int J Sci Res 2017;6:423–428.
  22. Dhanasekar B, Mohan NK, Bhaduri B, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness based on monochromatic speckle correlation using image processing. Prec Eng 2008;32:196–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2007.08.005.
  23. Broitman E. Indentation hardness measurements at macro-, micro-, and nanoscale: a critical overview. Tribology Letters 2017;65:23. DOI: 10.1007/s11249-016-0805-5.
  24. Morgans R, Lackovic S, Cobbold P, Understanding the IRHD and shore methods used in rubber hardness testing. Papers-american chemical society division of rubber chemistry. 1999.
  25. Eleni PN, Katsavou I, Krokida MK, et al. Mechanical behavior of facial prosthetic elastomers after outdoor weathering. Dent Mater 2009;25(12):1493–1502. DOI: 10.1016/
  26. A. D1415-18, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—International Hardness. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2018
  27. Mancuso DN, Goiato MC, Santos DM. Color stability after accelerated aging of two silicones, pigmented or not, for use in facial prostheses. Braz Oral Res 2009;23(2):144–148. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242009000200009.
  28. Al-Harbi FA, Ayad NM, Saber MA, et al. Mechanical behavior and color change of facial prosthetic elastomers after outdoor weathering in a hot and humid climate. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113(2):146–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.008.
  29. Abouelatta OB, 3D surface roughness measurement using a light sectioning vision system. in Proceedings of the world congress on engineering. 2010.
  30. Horcas I, Fernandez R, Gomez-Rodriguez JM, et al. WSXM: a software for scanninG PRObe microscopy and a tool for nanotechnology. Rev Sci Instrum 2007;78(1):013705. DOI: 10.1063/1.2432410.
  31. B ISO, 48. 2010. Rubber, Vulcanized Or Thermoplastic-Determination Of Hardness (Hardness Between 10 IRHD and 100 IRHD). British Standards Publication; 2010.
  32. A Standard, D2240, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property-Durometer Hardness. West Conshohoken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2005.
  33. Lewis DH, Castleberry DJ. An assessment of recent advances in external maxillofacial materials. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43(4):426–432. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(80)90215-2.
  34. Dootz ER, Koran A, Craig RG. Physical properties of three maxillofacial materials as a function of accelerated aging. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(4):379–383. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90098-1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.