Você está na página 1de 3

Comparative study of impact strength of six

acrylic denture resins


I. Dikbas*1, O. Gurbuz2 and F. Unalan3
The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the impact strength of three kinds of heat
polymerised acrylic resin: a microwave polymerised acrylic resin, a visible light cured resin and a
self-cured acrylic resin. From a group of six different materials, a total of 60 specimens
(7561063 mm) were fabricated, 10 from each material. The impact strength was evaluated
using the Charpy method. The test was performed at room temperature in an impact testing
machine (Zwick pendulum impact tester; Zwick GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, Germany) of a capacity of
0–7?5 J scale; the specimens were fractured. For statistical analysis, Kruskal–Wallis test followed
by Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used. The impact strength values exhibited statistically
significant differences among acrylic resin groups (p50?0001). High impact strength acrylic resin
showed the highest mean impact strength value among the materials tested.
Keywords: Impact strength, Acrylic resin, Denture base materials

Introduction form of butadiene styrene has been successful in terms of


improving the strength.11,12
Dentures are subjected to many different types of Ideally, denture base plastic should have sufficiently
stresses. Most denture fractures have been described as high impact strength to prevent breakage on accidental
commonly occurring in the mouth primarily because of dropping.13 Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
fatigue of the acrylic resin and extraorally as a result of determine and compare the impact fracture strength of
impact forces on the denture.1,2 Therefore, the dentures six denture acrylic materials. Three of these were heat
must be strong enough to withstand functional and polymerised acrylic resins (conventional heat poly-
parafunctional masticatory forces and patient careless- merised, rapid heat polymerised and high impact
ness such as dropping of the prosthesis. strength acrylic resin), and the others are light cured
Many different materials have been used for denture denture base resin, microwave polymerised acrylic resin
fabrication. Polymethyl methacrylate resin is the most and self-cured acrylic resin.
commonly used denture resin. As a result of progress in
polymer science, many different processing and activa-
tion techniques have been introduced to simplify the Experimental materials and method
technique and to reduce denture production time despite Three heat polymerised denture resins, one microwave,
the long time acceptance of compression moulding with one self-cure and one visible light cured resin were
the water bath polymerisation method, such as rapid chosen for the study. The trade names, manufacturers,
heat polymerised resin, a microwave polymerised resin descriptions and codes of the acrylic resins tested are
and a light activated urethane dimethacrylate resin.3,4 given in Table 1. A total of 60 rectangular unnotched
Factors such as acrylic resin chemical compositions specimens measuring 75 mm in length, 10 mm in height
and the times and types of polymerisation and micro- and 3 mm in thickness were fabricated. Ten specimens
wave power used may affect acrylic’s mechanical were prepared for each denture acrylics coded from A to
properties, as they are directly responsible for interchain F. The resins were polymerised according to the
force and polymer chain arrangements.3,5 Some poly- instruction from the corresponding manufacturer.
mers have been developed that exhibit improved Table 2 shows that powder/liquid ratio, mixing time,
mechanical properties.3–6 Various types of fibres or doughing time and polymerisation procedures of mate-
beads have been added to acrylic resin to improve its rials tested. Heat polymerised specimens (A, B and C)
strength.7–10 Furthermore, the chemical modification of were processed by placing denture resin under compres-
acrylic resin through the incorporation of rubber in the sion in the water bath (Kavo EWL 5501; Kavo
Electrotechnisches, Leutkirch, Germany). Microwave
acrylic resin specimens (D) were polymerised in a
1
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, microwave oven (2450 Hz, 550 W maximum potency;
Istanbul, Turkey
2
Department of Dentistry, Bakirkoy Mental Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey Vestel Goldstar ER 535, Manisa, Turkey). Self-cured
3
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, acrylic resin specimens (E) were prepared by manufac-
Istanbul, Turkey tures’ directions. Light cured denture resin specimens
*Corresponding author, email idildikbas@yahoo.com (F) were polymerised in the Triad visible light curing

ß W. S. Maney & Son Ltd. 2010


Received 11 February 2009; accepted 25 April 2009
DOI 10.1179/143307510X12719005364620 Materials Research Innovations 2010 VOL 14 NO 3 231
Dikbas et al. Comparative study of impact strength of six acrylic denture resins

Table 1 Trade names, manufacturers, descriptions and codes of materials tested

Trade name Manufacturer Description Code

Meliodent HC Heraus Kulzer Ltd, Newbury, UK Rapid heat polymerised resin A


Acron HC GC Intl. Corp., AC Tokyo, Japan Heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin B
Lucitone 199 Dentsply Intl., York Division, York, PA, USA Heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin C
Acron MC GC-Dental Ind. Corp., Tokyo, Japan Microwave polymerised acrylic resin D
Meliodent SC Heraus Kulzer Ltd, Newbury, UK Self-cured acrylic resin E
Triad VLC Dentsply York Division, York, PA, USA Visible light cured resin F

Table 2 Powder/liquid ratio, mixing time, doughing time and polymerisation procedures of materials tested

Code Powder/liquid ratio Mixing time, s Doughing time, min Polymerisation procedure

A 23.4 g/10 mL 30 6 20 min in 70uC and 23 min in boiling water


B 3.5 : 1 (by volume) 30 30 60 min in 70uC and 60 min in boiling water
C 21 g/10 mL 20 9 90 min at 73uC and 30 min in boiling water
D 100 g/43 mL 30 20 3 min at 500 W in microwave oven
E 5 : 3.5 (by volume) 30 … 14 min at room temperature (23¡1uC)
F Prefabricated … … 10 min in visible light curing unit

unit (Triad 2000; Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, Materials of different composition may not fracture
USA). under the same impact. Different processing techniques
Afterwards, all specimens were ground with 600 grit also may increase the fracture strength of acrylics.13
silicon carbide paper (Waterproof Silicone Carbide Therefore, in this in vitro study, it was aimed to
Paper, London, UK) to remove excess materials. investigate the impact strength of six denture acrylics.
Before testing, the specimens were stored in a water Several researchers also have used impact tests to
bath for 7 days at 37uC, followed by 1 h at 23uC. investigate the strength of different denture base
The impact strength was evaluated using the Charpy polymers.3,16–22 However, it is difficult to compare the
method. For the impact measurement, the ISO Standard authors’ findings with those of other studies
179 was followed.14 The test was performed at room exactly,3,6,15,17,19,21,23 probably due to dissimilar
temperature in an impact testing machine (Zwick research protocols that vary in terms of specimen,
pendulum impact tester; Zwick GmbH & Co. KG, dimensions, presence of notches, notch geometry, span
Ulm, Germany) of a capacity of 0–7?5 J scale; the length and type of the impact test (Charpy or Izod). A
specimens were fractured. For statistical analysis, commonly used method to measure the fracture
Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s multiple resistance of denture base resins is either Charpy or
comparison test were used. Izod impact test configuration, with the various
modifications concerning specimen dimensions and
Results and discussion notches.3 In this study, the Charpy method with
unnotched specimens was used to evaluate the impact
The mean impact strength values and standard devia-
strength of acrylics tested because it was reported
tions of all groups tested are presented in Table 3. The
that the methods used to apply the notch can set up
Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant differences
stresses and be difficult and time consuming, and not
among the acrylic resin groups (p,0?0001). The material
reproducible.3,15,22
C, high impact strength acrylic, showed the highest
The present study revealed that the values of impact
mean impact strength (0?561¡0?063 J), followed by the
strength of acrylics ranged from 0?160 J for a visible
materials D, B and A. The lowest mean impact strength
light cured acrylic to 0?561 J for high impact acrylic
value belonged to material F (the visible light curing
(rubber modified acrylic resin). The impact strength
material) (Table 3).
value of conventional heat cured acrylic was 0?314 J.
Table 4 presents the results of post hoc Dunn’s
Similarly, Craig13 also reported that the Charpy impact
multiple comparison test. The material C had signifi-
strength of unnotched specimens of denture resins
cantly higher impact strength value than materials A, E
ranges from 0?26 J for a conventional denture acrylic
and F (Tables 3 and 4).
to 0?58 J for a rubber modified acrylic resin.
The fracture of acrylic resin dentures remains an
unresolved problem, and failure is probably because of a
Table 3 Mean impact strength values and standard
multiplicity of factors and the intrinsic properties of the deviation of all groups tested and results of
denture base material. Denture base plastics must be Kruskal–Wallis test
durable to prevent breakage on accidental dropping. In
order to compare the performance of different denture Materials’ codes Impact strength, J
acrylics, various mechanical tests can be performed. A
A 0.270¡0.048
commonly used method in the literature to predict the B 0.314¡0.046
fracture resistance of acrylic resins is the impact test.15,16 C 0.561¡0.063
Impact strength is a measure of the energy absorbed by a D 0.320¡0.048
material when it is broken by a sudden blow. A sudden E 0.201¡0.055
blow might correspond to energy of impact resulting F 0.160¡0.042
from an accident to a person wearing the denture or kW 46.53
p 0.0001
from dropping the denture on a floor.13

Materials Research Innovations 2010 VOL 14 NO 3 232


Dikbas et al. Comparative study of impact strength of six acrylic denture resins

Table 4 Result of post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison test

Dunn’s multiple comparison test p value

Rapid heat polymerised resin/heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin (A/B) .0.05
Rapid heat polymerised resin/heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin (A/C) ,0.01
Rapid heat polymerised resin/visible light cured resin (A/F) .0.05
Rapid heat polymerised resin/self-cured acrylic resin (A/E) .0.05
Rapid heat polymerised resin/microwave polymerised acrylic resin (A/D) .0.05
Heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin/heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin (B/C) .0.05
Heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin/visible light cured resin (B/F) ,0.01
Heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin/self-cured acrylic resin (B/E) .0.05
Heat polymerised, conventional acrylic resin/microwave polymerised acrylic resin (B/D) .0.05
Heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin/visible light cured resin (C/F) ,0.001
Heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin/self-cured acrylic resin (C/E) ,0.001
Heat polymerised, high impact strength acrylic resin/microwave polymerised acrylic resin (C/D) .0.05
Visible light cured resin/self-cured acrylic resin (F/E) .0.05
Visible light cured resin/microwave polymerised acrylic resin (F/D) ,0.01
Self-cured acrylic resin/microwave polymerised acrylic resin (E/D) .0.05

The impact strength value of the material C (high References


impact strength acrylics) was found to be the highest in
this study, which is in agreement with some other 1. M. S. Beyli and J. A. von Fraunhofer: J. Prosthet. Dent., 1981, 46,
238–241.
studies.3,22,24–26 High impact acrylic is a copolymer of 2. U. R. Darbar, R. Huggett and A. Harison: Br. Dent. J., 1994, 176,
acrylic and butadiene and forms a matrix of acrylic with 342–345.
inclusions of rubber, and the rubber inclusions serve to 3. M. S. Memon, N. Yunus and A. A. Abdul Razak: Int. J.
prevent crack progress. Prosthodont., 2001, 14, 214–218.
4. R. D. Phoenix, M. A. Mansueto, N. A. Ackerman and R. E. Jones:
The microwave polymerised acrylic resin had a J. Prosthodont., 2004, 13, 17–27.
slightly higher impact strength value than conventional 5. J. Jacob, L. H. Chia and F. Y. Boey: J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 1997, 63,
and rapid heat polymerised resins. However, there were 787–797.
no significant differences among these materials. 6. G. L. Polyzois, P. A. Tarantili, M. J. Frangou and A. G.
Andreopoulos: J. Prosthet. Dent., 2001, 86, 613–619.
In the present study, the reason for the lower impact
7. J. M. Berrong, R. M. Weed and J. M. Young: Int. J. Prosthodont.,
strength values of visible light cured resin and self-cured 1990, 3, 391–395.
acrylic resin when they are compared with the other 8. A. J. Bowman and T. R. Manley: Br. Dent. J., 1984, 156, 87–89.
materials might be the presence of the large number of 9. N. H. Ladyzesky, T. W. Chow and Y. Y. Cheng: Int. J.
porosities in this material. Because these materials could Prosthodont., 1994, 7, 307–314.
10. P. K. Valittu: J. Prosthodont., 1996, 5, 115–121.
not be kept under pressure during the polymerisation 11. R. A. Rodford and M. Braden: Biomaterials, 1992, 13, 726–728.
process, common defects and internal voids often 12. R. Rodford: J. Dent., 1986, 14, 214–217.
occur.27 13. R. G. Craig: ‘Restorative dental material’, 11th edn; 2002, St Louis,
MO, Mosby.
14. ‘Testing of plastics, determination of impact resistance’, ISO 179,
Conclusions ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
15. J. G. Robinson and J. F. McCabe: Dent. Mater., 1993, 9, 355–360.
Within the limitations of this study, the following 16. L. T Smith, J. M. Powers and D. Ladd: Int. J. Prosthodont., 1992,
conclusions are drawn: 5, 315–320.
1. The high impact acrylic resin showed the highest 17. G. Zappini, A. Kammann and W. Watcher: J. Prosthet. Dent.,
2003, 90, 578–585.
mean impact strength value.
18. C. A. Price and R. Earnshaw: Aust. Dent. J., 1984, 29, 398–403.
2. The microwave polymerised acrylic resin had a 19. C. A. Price: J. Dent. Res., 1986, 65, 987–992.
slightly higher impact strength value than conventional 20. F. Faot, M. A. Costa, A. A. Del Bel Cury and R. C. M. Rodrigues
and rapid heat polymerised resins. There was no Garcia: J. Prosthet. Dent., 2006, 96, 367–373.
significant difference among them. 21. D. C. Jagger, R. G. Jagger, S. M. Allen and A. Harrison: J. Oral
Rehabil., 2002, 29, 263–267.
3. The light cured acrylic resin showed the lowest 22. T. R. Meng and M. A. Latta: J. Contemp. Dent. Pract., 2005, 6, 1–
mean impact strength value. Impact strength value of 4.
light cured resin was close to that of self-cured resin, and 23. J. Oku: Dent. Mater. J., 1989, 8, 186–193.
the difference was non-significant. 24. D. Al Doori, R. Huggett, J. F. Bates and S. C. Brooks: Dent.
Mater., 1988; 4, 25–32.
25. M. B. Alkhatib, C. J. Goodacre, M. L. Swartz, C. A. Munoz-
Acknowledgement Viveros and C. J. Andres: Int. J. Prosthodont., 1990, 3, 249–255.
26. G. Uzun and N. Hersek: Biomater. Appl., 2002, 17, 19–29.
This study was presented as a poster at the PEF IADR 27. H. K. Tan, J. S. Brudvik, J. I. Nichols and D. E. Smith: J. Prosthet.
Meeting, 10–12 September, 2008, in London, UK. Dent., 1989, 61, 326–331.

Materials Research Innovations 2010 VOL 14 NO 3 233

Você também pode gostar