Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002 29; 263±267
An investigation into the transverse and impact strength
of `high strength' denture base acrylic resins
D . C . J A G G E R * , R . G . J A G G E R ², S . M . A L L E N ² & A . H A R R I S O N *
Science, Division of Restorative Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Bristol Dental School and Hospital, Bristol and Department of Adult Dental Health,
Dental School, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK
SUMMARY A range of materials, often marketed as
high strength resins is available. These materials are
often expensive options to conventional heat-cured
acrylic resin. The aim of this study was to investigate
transverse and impact strength of ®ve `high
strength' acrylic resin denture base materials. A
conventional heat-cured acrylic resin was used as a
control. Specimens were prepared as speci®ed in the
International Standard Organization (ISO 1567:
1988) and British standards for the Testing of
Denture Base Resins (BS 2487: 1989) and the British
Standard Speci®cation for Orthodontic resins (BS
6747: 1987) for transverse bend and impact testing.
The impact strength was measured using a Zwick
Introduction
The material most commonly used in the construction
of dentures is poly (methyl methacrylate), however
this material it is not without limitations, particularly
in terms of ¯exural and impact strength. Attempts to
improve the mechanical properties of poly (methyl
methacrylate) have taken the researcher through
many avenues and the reinforcement of denture base
materials has been reviewed (Jagger et al., 1999).
Alternative materials to poly (methyl methacrylate)
have been introduced only later to be withdrawn
(Mutlu et al., 1989). Over the years various types of
®bres or beads, such as carbon (Bowman & Manley,
1984; Ekstrand et al., 1987), polyethylene (Clarke
et al., 1992; Ladizesky et al., 1994), glass (Solnit,
1991; Vallittu, 1996), aramid (Grave et al., 1985;
Berrong et al., 1990) and poly (methyl methacrylate)
(Jagger & Harrison, 1999; Jagger et al., 2000) have
ã 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
*Department of Oral and Dental
²
pendulum impact tester and the transverse bend
strength measured using a Lloyds Instruments
testing machine. The results showed that Metrocryl
Hi, Luctitone 199 and N.D.S. Hi all had an impact
strength which was signi®cantly higher than the
control. For the modulus of rupture, there was a
signi®cant difference between Sledgehammer and
the other groups. There was no signi®cant difference
between the other groups and the control. For the
modulus of elasticity, Sledgehammer produced the
highest value followed by the control. The remain-
ing four materials had a modulus of elasticity less
than the control.
been added to acrylic resin in an attempt to improve
its mechanical properties. Metal inserts in the form of
wires, meshes and plates have been incorporated into
dentures in an attempt to reinforce areas potentially
vulnerable to fracture (Vallittu & Lassila, 1992;
Polyzois, 1995).
The chemical modi®cation of acrylic resin through
the incorporation of rubber in the form of butadiene
styrene has been successful in terms of improving the
impact strength (Rodford, 1990; Rodford & Braden,
1992). However, the incorporation of rubber has not
been entirely successful in that it can have detrimental
effects on the modulus of elasticity and hence the
rigidity of the denture base. A wide range of materials,
often marketed as high strength resins is available.
These materials are often expensive options to conven-
tional heat-cured acrylic resin.
The aim of this study was to investigate transverse
and impact strength of a selection of `high strength'
263
264 D . C . J A G G E R et al.

Table 1. Materials used in the investigation together with the Table 2. Impact fracture energies (kJ m±2) of denture base acrylic
manufacturer resins. Zwick notched Charpy test. Specimens tested in air at
20 ‹ 2 °C
Material Manufacturer
Number of Mean
Metrocryl High Metrodent, Hudders®eld, UK
Material specimens (kJ m±2) s.d.
Luctitone 199 Dentsply, Weybridge, UK
Sledgehammer Bracon, Etchingham, UK Metrocryl Hi 10 11á45 2á34
Enigma Hi-base Schottlander, Letchworth, UK Luctitone 199 9 10á58 2á03
N.D.S. Hi Mobildent, St Annes, UK N.D.S. Hi 10 9á13 1á03
Trevalon (control) Dentsply, Weybridge, UK Enigma Hi-base 9 7á73 1á63
Sledgehammer 9 7á40 2á20
Trevalon 10 4á94 3á29
acrylic resin denture base materials. A conventional
heat-cured acrylic resin was used as a control. A one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that there was a
signi®cant difference between some groups P < 0á001.
A Scheffe test was performed and the vertical tie bars in the
Materials and method table indicate values, which are not signi®cantly different between
one another.
The materials used in the investigation are presented in
Table 1. A series of polymerized blanks was produced
by mixing the appropriate amount of polymer with Impact test
monomer according to the manufacturers' instructions.
For the impact tests on each specimen, a v-notch was
The mix was allowed to reach the dough stage prior
cut to a depth of 0á8 mm leaving an effective depth
to loading into a gypsum mould in a dental ¯ask.
under the notch of 3á2 mm. This was carried out with a
Moulds were prepared by investing master Perspex*
Zwick notch cutter³ (Model 5000) and a notch broach
blanks in gypsum. Following a trial closure, the
69D. The impact strength was measured using a Zwick
plate specimens were cured in a thermostatically
pendulum impact tester³ (Model 5102). Impact tests
controlled water bath for 7 h at 70 °C and 3 h at
were undertaken in air at 20 ‹ 2 °C.
100 °C. The ¯asks were allowed to bench cool before
opening. The cured plates were carefully removed from
the mould, the excess ¯ash was removed and the Transverse bend test
specimens ®nished using a Kemet polishing machine²
The transverse bend test used the three-point loading
with wet, self-adhesive. waterproof silicon carbide
method (British Standard Speci®cation For Denture
paper discs of 203 mm diameter, 320 and 600 AÊ grit
Base Polymers 2487: 1989) with a cross-head speed of
size. Each plate was of suf®cient size to be cut into four
5 mm min±1. A Lloyds Instruments testing machine§
specimens using a band saw. The specimens were then
(Model L2000R) was used. Specimens were tested in a
returned to the polishing machine and carefully
water bath at 37 °C to simulate oral conditions. Moduli
®nished to the dimensions of 64 ´ 10 ´ 2á5 mm for
of rupture, moduli of elasticity and peak load were
the transverse bend tests and 50 ´ 6 ´ 4 mm for the
recorded.
impact tests, as speci®ed in the International Standard
Organization (ISO 1567: 1988) and British standards
for the Testing of Denture Base Resins (BS 2487: 1989) Results
and the British Standard Speci®cation for Orthodontic
The results of the impact tests are presented in Table 2
Resins (BS 6747: 1987). A tolerance of ‹0á03 mm was
and the results of the transverse bend tests are
accepted. Ten specimens were prepared for each
presented in Tables 3±5. The results in Tables 3±5
percentage group and stored in a water bath at
were subjected to statistical analysis using a one-way
37 ‹ 2 °C until fully saturated. The impact specimens
analysis of variance and where appropriate the Scheffe
were taken from the water bath and stored in air for
test.
1 h prior to testing.
³
*ICI, Welwyn Garden City, UK. Zwick Testing Machines Ltd, Leominster, Hereford, UK.
² §
Kemet, Maidstone, Kent, UK. Lloyds Instruments plc, Southampton, UK.

ã 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29; 263±267

 HIGH STRENGTH DENTURE BASE ACRYLIC RESINS 265

Table 3. Modulus of rupture (MPa). Transverse strength of Table 5. Peak load (N). Transverse strength of acrylic resin
acrylic resin denture base materials. (Test cross-head speed denture base materials. (Test cross-head speed 5 mm min±1, tested
5 mm min±1, tested in water at 37 °C) in water at 37 °C)

Number of Modulus of rupture Number of Peak load

Material specimens (mean Mpa) s.d. Material specimens (N) s.d.
Sledgehammer 10 77á35 4á49 Sledgehammer 10 65á72 4á67
Trevalon 10 62á91 7á00 Trevalon 10 52á58 6á06
N.D.S. Hi 6 61á74 3á19 Luctitone 199 9 52á33 3á00
Enigma Hi-base 10 61á44 4á50 Metrocryl Hi 7 51á69 1á10
Luctitone 199 9 61á44 3á61 N.D.S. Hi 6 51á33 3á04
Metrocryl Hi 7 61á66 1á23 Enigma Hi base 10 50á97 5á07
A one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that there was a A one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that there was a
signi®cant difference between Sledgehammer and the other signi®cant difference between Sledgehammer and the other
groups P < 0á001. groups P < 0á001.
A Scheffe test was performed and the vertical tie bars in the table A Scheffe test was performed and the vertical tie bars in the table
indicate values, which are not signi®cantly different between one indicate values which are not signi®cantly different between one
another. another.

`high strength' denture base acrylic resins with a

conventional heat-cured acrylic resin.
Table 4. Modulus of elasticity (MPa). Transverse strength of
acrylic resin denture base materials. (Test cross-head speed
5 mm min±1, tested in water at 37 °C) Impact test

Number of Modulus of elasticity In all the impacts tests, the specimens broke with a sharp
Material specimens (mean MPa) s.d. fracture. This type of fracture is typical of brittle fracture
behaviour characterized by a lack of distortion of the
Sledgehammer 10 1999á5 98á3
Trevalon 10 1737á0 39á8 broken parts. Impact energy values satis®ed the require-
N.D.S. Hi 6 1528á3 92á1 ments of the British Standard Speci®cation for ortho-
Enigma Hi-base 10 1508á2 140á1 dontic resins BS 6747: 1987 although it should be noted
Metrocryl Hi 7 1489á1 91á3 that these are auto-polymerizing resins. The results
Luctitone 199 9 1465 100á3
demonstrated that there were signi®cant differences
A one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that there was a between some materials. There was no signi®cant
signi®cant difference between some groups P < 0á001. difference between Enigma Hi-base¶ (7á73 kJ m±2) and
A Scheffe test was performed and the vertical tie bars in the table Sledgehammer** (7á40 kJ m±2) compared with the
indicate values which are not signi®cantly different between one
control (4á94 kJ m±2). The impact fracture energies
another.
ranged from 11á45 kJ m±2 for the highest value recorded
for Metrodent Hi to 4á94 kJ m±2 for the conventional
heat-cured acrylic resin Trevalon. Metrocryl Hi,²²
Discussion Luctitone 199³³ and N.D.S. Hi§§ had an impact strength
The fracture of acrylic resin dentures remains an which was signi®cantly higher than the control.
unresolved problem and failure is probably because of An improvement in the impact strength of the `high
a multiplicity of factors rather than the intrinsic strength' acrylic resins was expected. This result should
properties of the denture base material. Various be re¯ected in a reduction in the clinical failure of
attempts have been made to overcome the problems dentures through impact fracture manufactured from
associated with the fracture of acrylic resin dentures. ¶
Schottlander, Letchworth, UK.
One approach is the development of denture base
**Bracon, Etchingham, UK.
materials marketed as high strength in comparison with ²²
Metrodent, Hudders®eld, UK.
conventional heat-cured acrylic resin. This study ³³Dentsply, Weybridge, UK.
compared the impact and transverse strengths of ®ve §§
Mobildent, St Annes, UK.

ã 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29; 263±267

266 D . C . J A G G E R et al.
these materials. It is not possible to discuss the
mechanisms of reinforcement of the individual acrylic
resins as most manufacturers of denture base materials
are reluctant to reveal the exact constituents of the
products, or the mechanisms of reinforcement used.
The development of high impact strength denture base
acrylic resin and the mechanisms of reinforcement has
been discussed in more general terms (Rodford &
Braden, 1992). The mechanism of reinforcement
described was acrylate terminated butadiene styrene
copolymers (Macromers) of relatively low molecular
weight and narrow molecular range together with non-
acrylate terminated block copolymers.
The results of this study are in agreement with
Murphy et al. (1982) in an investigation of some
mechanical properties of three denture base materials,
a conventional heat-cured acrylic resin, a rubber
reinforced heat-cured acrylic resin and an injection
moulded, rubber-reinforced acrylic resin. They reported
a considerable improvement in the impact strength for
the rubber-reinforced polymers. However, in contrast,
Johnston et al. (1981), in an investigation of the
¯exural fatigue of 10 commonly used denture base
acrylic resins which included a `high strength' acrylic
resin, reported that the `high impact' acrylic resins as a
category did not exhibit superior results compared with
other resins.
Transverse bend test
The transverse (¯exural strength) of a material is a
measure of stiffness and resistance to fracture. Flexural
strength tests were undertaken as these were consid-
ered relevant to the loading characteristics of a denture
base in a clinical situation. A number of studies (Regli &
Kydd, 1953; Swoop & Kydd, 1966) have established
that dentures in service undergo only small deforma-
tions and Ladizesky et al. (1993) reported that ¯exural
modulus should be measured at similar small deforma-
tions. In addition when de¯ections are small the
calculated ¯exural modulus may be regarded as
Young's (elastic) modulus of the material.
The machine chosen for the tests, the Lloyd's
Instrument Materials Testing Machine is routinely used
and widely accepted. The tests were carried out
according to BS 2487: 1989 such that the results were
directly comparable with previous studies. The Inter-
national Standard Organization (ISO 1567) (1988) and
the British Standard speci®cation 1989 (BS 2487) for
ã 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29; 263±267
denture base resins have speci®ed transverse deforma-
tion limits which are from 1 to 2á5 mm for a force of 15±
35 N and 2±5 mm for a force of 15±50 N. The average
breaking force of acrylic resin should not be less than
55 N. In this respect, only Sledgehammer satis®ed the
requirement. There were no signi®cant differences
between the other materials tested. The lowest recorded
peak load was for Enigma (50á97 N).
Stafford et al. (1980) compared the properties of a
range of high impact polymers with conventional
acrylic resin denture base materials. They demonstrated
that some unreinforced conventional acrylic resin
materials had a higher fatigue life value compared with
the reinforced acrylic resins but demonstrated a large
scatter. In the present study, for the modulus of
rupture, a one-way analysis of variance demonstrated
a signi®cant difference between Sledgehammer and the
other groups. There was no signi®cant difference
between the other groups and the control. An increase
in the modulus of elasticity is associated with an
increase in the rigidity of the denture base material.
Sledgehammer produced the highest value of
1999 MPa, followed by Trevalon. The remaining four
materials had a modulus of elasticity less than the
conventional heat-cured control. The reduction in the
modulus of elasticity may be a re¯ection of the type of
reinforcement, for example the incorporation of rubber.
Conclusions
Metrocryl Hi, Luctitone 199 and N.D.S. Hi all had an
impact strength which was signi®cantly higher than the
conventional heat-cured acrylic resin control material.
For the modulus of rupture, there was a signi®cant
difference between Sledgehammer and the other
groups. There was no signi®cant difference between
the other groups and the control. For the modulus of
elasticity, Sledgehammer produced the highest value
followed by the control. The remaining four materials
had a modulus of elasticity less than the control.
References
BERRONG , I.M., WEED , R.M. & YOUNG , J.M. (1990) Fracture
resistance of Kevlar-reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate)
resin: a preliminary study. International Journal of Prosthodontics,
3, 391.
BOWMAN , A.J. & MANLEY , T.R. (1984) The elimination of
breakages in upper dentures by reinforcement with carbon
®bre. British Dental Journal, 156, 87.
 HIGH STRENGTH DENTURE BASE ACRYLIC RESINS
BRITISH STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR DENTURE BASE POLYMERS .
BS 2487 (1989) British Standards Institution. London, UK.
BRITISH STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ORTHODONTIC RESINS . BS
6747 (1987) British Standards Institution. London, UK.
CLARKE , D.A., LADIZESKY , N.H. & CHOW , T.W. (1992) Acrylic
resins reinforced with highly drawn linear polyethylene woven
®bres. Construction of upper denture bases. Australian Dental
Journal, 37, 394.
EKSTRAND , K., RUYTER , I.E. & WELLENDORF , H. (1987) Carbon/
graphite ®bre reinforced poly (methylmethacrylate): properties
under dry and wet conditions. Journal of Biomedical Materials
Research, 21, 1065.
GRAVE , A.M.H., CHANDLER , H.D. & WOLFAARDT , J.F. (1985)
Denture base acrylic reinforced with high modulus ®bre. Dental
Materials, 1, 185.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ORGANISATION (ISO) 1567 (1988)
Speci®cations for Denture Base Polymers. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
JAGGER , D.C. & HARRISON , A. (1999) The effect of chopped poly
(methyl methacrylate) ®bres on some properties of acrylic resin
denture base material. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 12, 542.
JAGGER , D.C., HARRISON , A. & AL -MARZOUG , K. (2001) The effect
of the addition of poly (methyl methacrylate) beads on some
properties of acrylic resin. International Journal of Prosthodontics
13, 378.
JAGGER , D.C., HARRISON , A. & JANDT , K. (1999) The reinforce-
ment of dentures. A review. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 26,
185.
JOHNSTON , E.P., NICHOLLAS , J.I. & SMITH , D.E. (1981) Flexure
fatigue of 10 commonly used denture bare resins. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 46, 478.
LADIZESKY , N.H., CHEN , Y.Y., CHOW , T.W. & WARD , I.M. (1993)
Acrylic reinforced with chopped high performance polyethylene
®bres-properties and denture construction. Dental Materials, 9,
128.
LADIZESKY , N.H., CHOW , T.W. & CHENG , Y.Y. (1994) Denture base
reinforcement using woven polyethylene ®ber. International
Journal of Prosthodontics, 7, 307.
ã 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29; 263±267
267
MURPHY , W.M., BATES , J.F., HUGGETT , R. & BRIGHT , R. (1982)
A comparative study of three denture base materials. British
Dental Journal, 152, 273.
MUTLU , G., HARRISON , A. & HUGGETT , R. (1989) A history of denture
base materials. Quintessence Dental Technology Yearbook, 145.
POLYZOIS , G.L. (1995) Reinforcement of denture acrylic resin. The
effect of metal inserts and denture resin type on fracture
resistance. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative
Dentistry, 3, 275.
REGLI , C.P. & KYDD , W.L. (1953) A preliminary study of the lateral
deformation of metal base dentures in relation to plastic base
dentures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 3, 326.
RODFORD , R.A. (1990) Further development and evaluation of
high-impact-strength denture base materials. Journal of Den-
tistry, 18, 151.
RODFORD , R.A. & BRADEN , M. (1992) Further observations on the
high impact strength denture base materials. Biomaterials, 13,
726.
SOLNIT , G.S. (1991) The effect of methyl methacrylate reinforce-
ment with silane-treated and untreated glass ®bers. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 66, 310.
STAFFORD , G.D., BATES , J.F., HUGGETT , R. & HANDLEY , R.W.
(1980) A review of the properties of some denture base
polymers. Journal of Dentistry, 8, 292.
SWOOP , C.C. & KYDD , W.L. (1966) The effect of cusp form and
occlusal surface area on denture base deformation. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 16, 34.
VALLITTU , P.K. (1996) Comparison of in vitro fatigue resistance of
acrylic resin partial denture reinforced with continuous glass
®bres or metal wire. Journal of Prosthodontics, 5, 115.
VALLITTU , P.K. & LASSILA , V.P. (1992) Effect of metal strength-
ener's surface roughness on fracture resistance of acrylic
denture base material. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 19, 385.
Correspondence: Dr D.C. Jagger, Restorative Dentistry, Bristol Dental
School, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol BS1 2LY, UK.
E-mail: d.c.jagger@ bris.ac.uk