Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
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
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