Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026
Stiffness Measurement of Soft Silicone Substrates for Mechanobiology Studies Using a Widefield Fluorescence Microscope
Published on: July 3, 2018
Effect of nano-oxide concentration on the mechanical properties of a maxillofacial silicone elastomer
Ying Han1, Sudarat Kiat-amnuay, John M Powers
1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Statement Of Problem:
Contemporary silicone-based elastomeric prostheses tend to degrade over time because of the effect of mechanical loading. Little has been reported on how the mechanical properties of a maxillofacial prosthetic elastomer may be affected by the addition of nanosized oxide particles used as an opacifier.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different concentrations of nanosized oxides of various composition on the mechanical properties of a commercially available silicone elastomer.
Material And Methods:
Nanosized oxides (Ti, Zn, or Ce) were added in various concentrations (0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5%, or 3.0% by weight) to a commercial silicone elastomer (A-2186), commonly used for fabricating extraoral maxillofacial prostheses. Silicone elastomer A-2186 without nanosized oxides served as a control group. Specimens (n=5) were polymerized according to manufacturer's recommendations and tested for tensile strength (ASTM D412) and tear strength (ASTM D624), and percent elongation in a universal testing machine. Uniformity of particle dispersion within the processed elastomer was assessed using scanning electron microscopic imaging. For each property, a 2-way ANOVA was performed evaluating the effect of oxide type and strength, and Fisher's PLSD test was used for pairwise comparisons (alpha=.05).
Results:
SEM examination indicated that all 3 nanosized oxides distribute evenly throughout the silicone specimens, except for the 3.0% group, which are partly agglomerated. The 2.0% and 2.5% groups of all nanosized oxides demonstrated significantly higher tensile and tear strengths and percent elongation (P<.001) than the control group. CeO(2) had significantly lower tensile strength than TiO2 and ZnO (P<.05). The ZnO group had significantly higher tear strength than TiO(2) and CeO(2) (P <.05). Most of specimens became somewhat harder when compared with the control group. CeO(2) group had significantly higher Shore A hardness than TiO(2) and ZnO (P<.001). There was no significant difference of percent elongation among the type of nanosized oxides.
Conclusions:
Incorporation of Ti, Zn, or Ce nano-oxides at concentrations of 2.0% and 2.5% improved the overall mechanical properties of the silicone A-2186 maxillofacial elastomer.
