ISSN : 2663-2187

Evaluation of Tear Strength of Graphene Incorporated Room Temperature Vulcanizing Silicones at Different Conditions: An in vitroStudy

Main Article Content

Dr. Sareen Duseja, Dr. Vishal Chauhan, Dr. Vishal Parmar, Dr. Daivika Kagathara, Dr. Kishan Sharma, Dr. Liya Neha Bipinchandra
» doi: 10.48047/AFJBS.6.Si3.2024.3252-3259

Abstract

Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate the tear strength of commonly used room temperature vulcanized (RTV) silicone for maxillofacial prostheses with and without the incorporation of varying concentrations of graphene. Materials and Method:This in vitro comparative study included 40 samples prepared using stainless-steel die fabricated according to the ANSI/ADA specifications no 20.and ASTM (American Standards for Testing and Material) D624divided into four groups: Group I (NGS)-maxillofacial silicone elastomer without graphene, Group II (0.5GS)-silicone with 0.5% graphene, Group III (1GS)-silicone with 1% graphene, and Group IV (2GS)-silicone with 2% graphene. Samples were prepared using a standard RTV silicone elastomer mixed according to manufacturer instructions. Graphene was incorporated in specified concentrations. Tear strength was measured using an INSTRON Universal Testing Machine, and statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and post hoc tests. Results: The highest mean tear strength was observed in the group with 0.5% graphene (39.99±1.15 N/mm), followed by 1% graphene (37.50±1.35 N/mm), no graphene (37.45±2.07 N/mm), and 2% graphene (33.69±1.30 N/mm). Statistically significant differences in tear strength were found among the groups (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between 0.5% and 1% graphene (p = 0.004) and 0.5% and 2% graphene (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Incorporation of graphene into RTV maxillofacial silicones initially increases tear strength up to 0.5% concentration, after which the strength decreases. The optimal concentration for enhanced tear strength is 0.5% graphene. However, the dark gray color of graphene may not be aesthetically suitable for all patients.

Article Details