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.
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).
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.
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.