Colour stability of Siloczest LSR 120 against Cosmesil M511 maxillofacial silicones under simulated environmental ageing conditions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.45431Keywords:
colour stability, maxillofacial prosthesis, silicone elastomers, Siloczest LSR 120, spectrophotometryAbstract
Background: Maxillofacial prostheses play a vital role in rehabilitating facial form and function, with long-term colour stability being a key determinant of patient satisfaction. These prostheses are routinely exposed to ultraviolet radiation, sweat, and cleaning agents, which may compromise their appearance over time.
Aim: To compare the colour stability of two maxillofacial silicone elastomers, Siloczest LSR 120 and Cosmesil M511 under simulated ageing conditions replicating clinical exposures.
Materials and methods: A total of 80 samples (40 per material) were fabricated and divided into four subgroups based on ageing conditions: sunlight, artificial sweat, immersion in neutral soap, and a combination of sunlight and sweat. Colour measurements were recorded before and after 6 months of ageing, except for neutral soap (30 hours) using the Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage Lab* ( CIE L*a*b*) system via a spectrophotometer, and ΔE values were calculated. Data were analysed using SPSS v28. Normality was assessed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction were used for inter- and intra-group comparisons.
Results: Both materials exhibited colour changes under all conditions. No statistically significant difference was observed between Siloczest LSR 120 and Cosmesil M511 under isolated sunlight or sweat exposure. However, Siloczest LSR 120 showed significantly higher discolouration under neutral soap (ΔE-1.48) and combined sunlight and sweat conditions (ΔE-6.68) against Cosmesil M511 (ΔE-0.68 & 3.82 respectively), (p < 0.05). The combination of sweat and sunlight caused the greatest colour degradation, particularly in Siloczest LSR 120.
Conclusion: The results suggest that while Cosmesil M511 remains the more reliable option for long-term aesthetics, Silicozest LSR 120 demonstrates promising performance. Although its colour stability was comparatively poorer under neutral soap and combined exposure, the observed changes remained within clinically acceptable limits for darker skin tones (ΔE < 10.07), indicating that it can still be considered a viable material for clinical use in appropriate contexts.
Downloads
References
Rifkin WJ, Kantar RS, Ali-Khan S, Plana NM, Diaz-Siso JR, Tsakiris M, et al. Facial disfigurement and identity: a review of the literature and implications for facial transplantation. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(4): 309–23. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.4.peer1-1804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.4.peer1-1804
Hatamleh MM, Polyzois GL, Silikas N, Watts DC. Effect of extraoral ageing conditions on mechanical properties of maxillofacial silicone elastomer. J Prosthodont. 2011;20:439–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00736.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00736.x
Barhate AR, Gangadhar SA, Bhandari AJ, Joshi AD. Materials used in maxillofacial prosthesis: a review. Pravara Med Rev. 2015;7(1):5–8.
Lanzara R, Viswambaran M, Kumar D. Maxillofacial prosthetic materials: current status and recent advances: a comprehensive review. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2021;7(2):255–9. https://doi.org/10.22271/oral.2021.v7.i2d.1219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/oral.2021.v7.i2d.1219
Gradinariu AI, Racles C, Stoica I, Stelea CG, Simionescu AMA, Jehac AE, et al. Silicones for maxillofacial prostheses and their modifications in service. Materials (Basel). 2024;17:3297. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17133297 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17133297
Chemzest Enterprises. Liquid silicone rubber – SILOCZEST liquid silicone rubber [Internet]. Chennai: Chemzest Enterprises; cited 2025 May 18. Available from: https://www.chemzest.com/liquid-silicone-rubber
Kurt M, Nemli SK, Güngör MB, Bal BT, Öztürk E. Perceptibility and acceptability thresholds for colour differences of light and dark maxillo-facial skin replications. Vision Res. 2024;223:108474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2024.108474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2024.108474
Mehta S, Nandeeshwar DB. A spectrophotometric analysis of extraoral ageing conditions on the colour stability of maxillofacial silicone. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(4):355–60. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_87_17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_87_17
Technovent Ltd. Cosmesil M511 maxillofacial silicone elastomer [Internet]. Newport: Technovent Ltd; cited 2025 May 18. Available from: https://www.technovent.com/product-page/technovent-m511-silicone
Goiato MC, Pesqueira AA, Dos Santos DM, Zavanelli AC, Ribeiro PP. Colour stability comparison of silicone facial prostheses following disinfection. J Prosthodont. 2009;18:242–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00411.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00411.x
Gupta P, Deshpande S, Radke U, Ughade S, Sethuraman R. The colour stability of maxillofacial silicones: a systematic review and meta analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2021;21(2):138–49. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_253_19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_253_19
Shah KK, Rajaraman V, Veeraiyan DN, Maiti S. A systematic review on maxillofacial prosthesis with respect to their colour stability. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2024;34(3):43–53. https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2023048802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2023048802
Hatamleh MM, Watts DC. Mechanical properties and bonding of maxillofacial silicone elastomers. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):185–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.001
Al-Dharrab A, Tayel SB, Morgano SM. Effect of storage conditions on colour stability and hardness of pigmented maxillofacial silicone material. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(9):718–22. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/582051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/582051
Polyzois GL. Colour stability of facial silicone prosthetic polymer after outdoor weathering. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82:447–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70032-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70032-6
Haug SP, Andres CJ, Moore BK. Colour stability and colourant effect on maxillofacial elastomers. Part III: weathering effect on colour. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:431–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)80010-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)80010-9
Farah R, Barman A, Farook T, Jamayet NB, Yhaya MFB, Alam MK. Factors affecting colour stability of maxillofacial prosthetic silicone elas-tomer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(4):337–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095244320946790 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095244320946790
Chamaria A, Aras MA, Chitre V, Rajagopal P. Effect of chemical disinfectants on the colour stability of maxillofacial silicones: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e869–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12768 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12768
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anurag Jain, Pavankumar Koralakunte Ravi, Sunitha Naveen Shamnur, Nandeeshwar Doddabasavaiah Basvapura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
