Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-2001
Abstract
Statement of problem. Despite the favorable properties of conventional PMMA used as a denture base material, its fracture resistance could be improved. Purpose. This in vitro study was performed to determine whether the flexural strength of a commercially available, heat-polymerized acrylic denture base material could be improved through reinforcement with 3 types of fibers. Material and methods. Ten specimens of similar dimensions were prepared for each of the 4 experimental groups: conventional acrylic resin and the same resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. Flexural strength was evaluated with a 3-point bending test. The results were analyzed with a 1-way analysis of variance. Results. All reinforced specimens showed better flexural strength than the conventional acrylic resin. Specimens reinforced with glass fibers showed the highest flexural strength, followed by aramid and nylon. Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the flexural strength of heat-polymerized PMMA denture resin was improved after reinforcement with glass or aramid fibers. It may be possible to apply these results to distal extension partial denture bases and provisional fixed partial dentures.
Keywords
linear polyethylene fibers mechanical-properties impact strength resistance fracture metal
Divisions
GeneralDentalPracticeAndOralMaxillofacialImaging
Publication Title
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume
86
Issue
4
Publisher
Elsevier
Additional Information
ISI Document Delivery No.: 490VV Times Cited: 35 Cited Reference Count: 23 Cited References: BERRONG JM, 1990, INT J PROSTHODONT, V3, P931 BEYLI MS, 1981, J PROSTHET DENT, V46, P238, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90206-7 CHOW TW, 1992, AUST DENT J, V37, P433 CLARK HA, 1963, MOD PLAST, V40, P133 DEBOER J, 1984, J PROSTHET DENT, V51, P119, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(84)80117-1 DIXON DL, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P510, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80108-8 EICK JD, 1977, DENT CLIN N AM, V21, P459 GOLDBERG AJ, 1992, DENT MATER, V8, P197, DOI 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90083-O GUTTERIDGE DL, 1992, J DENT, V20, P50, DOI 10.1016/0300-5712(92)90012-2 GUTTERIDGE DL, 1988, BRIT DENT J, V164, P177, DOI 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806395 LADIZESKY NH, 1993, AUST DENT J, V38, P28 LAMBRECHT JR, 1962, J PROSTHET DENT, V12, P865, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(62)90039-2 MATTHEWS E, 1955, BR DENT J, V98, P231 PEYTON FA, 1975, DENT CLIN N AM, V19, P211 ROBINSON JG, 1993, DENT MATER, V9, P355, DOI 10.1016/0109-5641(93)90056-V SMITH DC, 1962, J PROSTHET DENT, V12, P1066, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(62)90162-2 SOLANIT GS, 1991, J PROSTHET DENT, V66, P310 Stafford G D, 1970, Br Dent J, V128, P442, DOI 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802483 Vallittu P K, 1997, Quintessence Int, V28, P39 Vallittu PK, 1995, ACTA ODONTOL SCAND, V53, P392, DOI 10.3109/00016359509006007 VALLITTU PK, 1992, J ORAL REHABIL, V19, P225, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1992.tb01096.x VALLITTU PK, 1994, J PROSTHET DENT, V71, P607, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90446-4 WILLIAMSON DL, 1994, J PROSTHET DENT, V72, P635, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90296-8 John, J Gangadhar, SA Shah, I Mosby, inc St louis