Water sorption and solubility of polyamide denture base materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Some patients experience adverse reactions to poly(methyl methacrylate)-based (PMMA) dentures. Polyamide (PA) as an alternative to PMMA has, however, not been well documented with regard to water sorption and water solubility. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure water sorption and water solubility of two PA materials compared with PMMA, and to evaluate the major components released from the PA materials and the effect on hardness of the materials.Methods: Ten discs (40.0 mm diameter, 2.0 mm thick) of each material (PA: Valplast and Breflex; PMMA: SR Ivocap HIP) were prepared according to manufacturers’ recommendations. The specimens were tested for water sorption and water solubility, according to a modification of ISO 20795-1:2008. Released substances were analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).Results: There were statistically significant differences among the materials regarding water sorption, water solubility and time to water saturation. Breflex had the highest water sorption (30.4 μg/mm3), followed by PMMA-material (25.8 μg/mm3) and Valplast (13.6 μg/mm3). Both PA materials had statistically significant lower water solubility than the PMMA. Both PA had a net increase in weight. Analysis by GC/MS identified release of the compound 12-aminododecanolactam from the material Valplast. No release was found from the Breflex material.Conclusions: The PA denture materials show differences in water sorption and solubility, but within the limits of the standard requirements. The PA showed a net increase in weight after long-term water sorption. The clinical implications of the findings are not elucidated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".