Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Six Denture Base Acrylic Resins

Abstract

Fracture strength of denture base resins is of great concern, and many approaches have been used to strengthen acrylic resin dentures. Fracture resistance of six commercially available acrylic resin denture base materials were compared, through impact and transverse strength tests. Three rapid heat-polymerised resins (QC 20, Meliodent and Trevalon), two high-impact strength resins (Trevalon Hi and Lucitone 199) and a strengthened injection-moulded acrylic resin (SR Ivocap plus) were included in the study. Twenty acrylic resin test specimens were fabricated from each resin. For impact strength test, ten notched specimens were tested in a Charpy-type impact tester. The other ten specimens were used for transverse strength tests, deflection and modulus of elasticity values were also determined, which were assessed with three-point bending tests using an Universal Testing Machine.

Impact test values showed significant differences among acrylic resins (F = 4.817 p = 0.0). SR Ivocap resin showed the highest impact strength values, followed by Trevalon Hi and Lucitone 199. The transverse strength test values were not significant when six acrylic resins were compared (F = 1.705 p = 0.151).

High-impact resins can be recommended to increase the impact strength of denture base. If the cause of fracture is mechanical or anatomical, strengthened acrylic resins and conventional acrylic resins have similar fracture resistance.

Keywords

acrylic resins denture base materials mechanical properties

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Goldberg, A.J. and Burstone, C.J. (1992). The use of continuous fibre reinforcement in dentistry. Dental Materials, 8: 197–202.

2. Darbar, U.R. , Huggett, R. and Harrison, A. (1994). Denture fracture – a survey. Br. Dent. J., 7; 176(9): 342–345.

3. Beyli, M.S. and von Fraunhofer, J.A. (1981). An analysis of causes of fracture of acrylic resin dentures. J. Prosthet. Dent., 46: 238–241.

4. Hargreaves, A.S. (1969). The prevalence of fractured dentures, a survey. British Dental Journal, 126: 451–455.

5. Valittu, P.K. , Alakuijala, P. , Lassila, V.P. and Lappalainen, P. (1994). In vitro fatigue fracture of an acrylic resin-based partial denture: an exploratory study. J. Prosthet. Dent., 72: 289–295.

6. Stafford, G.D. , Huggett, R. and Causton, B.E. (1980). Fracture toughness of denture base acrylics. J. Biomed. Mater. Rest., 14: 359–371.

7. Stafford, G.D. , Bates, J.F. and Huggett, R. et al. (1980). A review of the properties of some denture base polymers. J. Dent., 8: 292–306.

8. O’Brien, W.J. (1997). Dental materials and their selection. 2nd Edn. Quintessence Publication. pp. 85–89.

9. Smith, L.S.A. and Saver, J.A. (1986). Sorbed water and mechanical behaviour of poly(methyl methacrylate). Plast. Rubber Process Appl., 6: 57–65.

10.

10. Dixon, D.L. , Ekstrand, K.G. and Bredding, L.C. (1991). The transverse strengths of three denture base resins. J. Prosthet. Dent., 66: 510–513.

11.

11. Lamb, D.J. (1993). Problems and Solutions in Complete Denture Prosthodontics. (1st Edn). London, UK: Quintessence Publishing, p. 118-118.

12.

12. Uzun, G. , Hersek, N. and Tinçer, T. (1999). Effect of five woven fibre reinforcements on the impact and transverse strength of a denture base resin. J. Prosthet. Dent., 81: 616–620.

13.

13. Phillips, R.W. (1991). Skinner’s Science of Dental Materials. 9th Edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.

14.

14. Craig, R.G. , O’Brien, W.J. and Powers, J.M. (1987). Dental Materials Properties and Manipulation. 4th Edn. St Louis: C V Mosby Co.

15.

15. Rahn, A.O. and Heartwell, C.M. (1993). Textbook of complete dentures. 5th Edn. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. pp. 481-481.

16.

16. Takahashi, Y. , Kawaguchi, M. and Chai, J. (1997). Flexural strength at the proportional limit of a denture base material. Int. J. Prosthodont, 10: 508–512.