Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-2009
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the shear bond strengths of light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate (Eclipse) and heat-polymerized polymethylmethacrylate (Meliodent) denture base polymers to intraoral and laboratory-processed reline materials. Materials and Methods: Thirty disks measuring 15 mm diameter and 2 mm thick were prepared for each denture base material following the manufacturers' recommendation. They were relined with Meliodent RR, Kooliner, and Secure reline materials after 1 month of water immersion. Ten additional Eclipse specimens were relined using the same Eclipse resin. A shear bond test was carried out on an Instron machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min 24 hours after relining. Data were analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVAs and post hoc Dunnett's T3 test (p = 0.05). The nature of failure was analyzed under a stereomicroscope. The effect of dichloromethane adhesive on the two denture polymer surfaces and the failed interfaces of mixed and adhesive failures were analyzed under a SEM (scanning electron microscope). Results: Two-way ANOVA showed significant differences in the shear bond strength values as a function of the denture base polymers, reline materials, and their interaction (p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in shear bond strength values among denture base-reline combinations (p < 0.05) except for Meliodent-Kooliner and Eclipse-Meliodent RR relines. Meliodent showed the highest shear bond strength value when relined with Meliodent RR (14.5 +/- 0.5 MPa), and Eclipse showed the highest value with Eclipse relining (11.4 +/- 0.6 MPa). Meliodent denture base showed adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failure, while all Eclipse showed adhesive failure with various reline materials. Conclusion: The two chemically different denture base polymers showed different shear bond strength values to corresponding reline materials.
Keywords
Shear bond, Urethane dimethacrylate, Methyl methacrylate, Reline, Light, Polymerization
Divisions
ConservativeDentistry
Publication Title
Journal of Prosthodontics
Volume
18
Issue
7
Publisher
Wiley
Additional Information
ISI Document Delivery No.: V17CG Times Cited: 3 Cited Reference Count: 23 Cited References: Ali Isma Liza, 2008, J Prosthodont, V17, P545, DOI 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00357.x ARENA CA, 1993, J PROSTHET DENT, V70, P126, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90006-A ARIMA T, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P55, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80273-2 Arima T, 1996, J PROSTHET DENT, V75, P457, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90044-X Aydin AK, 1999, DENT MATER, V15, P211, DOI 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00038-X Chai J, 2000, INT J PROSTHODONT, V13, P112 Cucci ALM, 1998, J PROSTHET DENT, V80, P434, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70008-3 CURTIS DA, 1989, DENT MATER, V5, P314, DOI 10.1016/0109-5641(89)90122-X Grossmann Y, 2005, J PROSTHET DENT, V94, P289, DOI 10.1016/j.prodent.2005.00.014 Leles CR, 2001, J ORAL REHABIL, V28, P1153, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00786.x LICHKUS AM, 2004, J DENT RES S, V83, P1386 Machado C, 2007, J DENT, V35, P930, DOI 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.09.006 MINAMI H, 2004, J PROSTHET DENT, V91, P64 Neppelenbroek Karin Hermana, 2006, J Appl Oral Sci, V14, P436 Sarac YS, 2005, J PROSTHET DENT, V94, P259, DOI 10.1016/j.prodent.2005.05.024 Smith L T, 1991, Int J Prosthodont, V4, P445 Stipho HD, 2001, J PROSTHET DENT, V86, P143, DOI 10.1067/mpr.2001.117055 Takahashi Y, 2001, INT J PROSTHODONT, V14, P271 Takahashi Y, 2001, INT J PROSTHODONT, V14, P531 Takahashi Y, 2000, INT J PROSTHODONT, V13, P59 WYATT CCL, 1986, J PROSTHET DENT, V55, P343, DOI 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90117-4 Anonymous, 2005, J PROSTHET DENT, V94, P10 *INT ORG STAND, 114052003 ISOTS Ahmad, Fauziah Yunus, Norsiah University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia This study was supported by Vote F funding, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Wiley-blackwell Malden