• Users Online: 391
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Instructions to authors Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65-70

Physical and mechanical properties of pressure-molded and injection-molded denture base acrylics in different conditions


1 Consultant Prosthodontist and Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Dentistry, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Adjunct Professor General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, USA

Date of Web Publication12-Aug-2014

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yousef A Shibat Al Hamd
Department of Dentistry, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, P.O. Box 88135, Riyadh - 11662
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1658-6816.138463

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background and Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the physical (processing shrinkage) and mechanical properties (bending deflection, flexure strength, and flexure modulus) of pressure-molded (Lucitone 199 and ProBase Hot) and injection-molded (SR-Ivocap) denture base materials in different conditions.
Materials and Methods: Two denture base materials for pressure molding, Lucitone 199 and ProBase Hot, and one for injection molding (SR-Ivocap) were tested. Polymerization shrinkage (PS) was determined by measuring the linear distances between the reference points on the wax patterns (65 mm × 55 mm × 6 mm) and the corresponding cured acrylic plates and calculating the difference. Rectangular specimens (50 mm × 10 mm × 2.5 mm) were machined from these acrylic plates and used to measure bending deflection (BD) at various load levels, flexure strength (FS), and modulus of elasticity using a three-point bend test on an Instron Universal Testing Machine. A minimum of seven specimens were tested for each variable category. For each material, the percentage of specimens that failed within the load range of 9-10 kg was noted. Statistical analysis involved calculation of mean and standard deviations followed by group comparison of properties of different materials by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple range tests. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
Result: There was no significant difference between the PS values. ProBase Hot exhibited significantly less BD and greater FS values than the other two materials (P < 0.05). Within the load range of 9-10 kg., 5% of the lucitone specimens, 25% of the SR-Ivocap specimens, and all of the ProBase Hot specimens fractured.
Conclusion: The three tested denture base acrylics did not show any significant differences in processing shrinkage. However, ProBase Hot showed significantly lower bending deflection values than Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap. Compared to Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap, ProBase Hot is a tougher and a stiffer material. Hence, it is more likely to fracture readily if subjected to extreme loading conditions due to the accidental fall of the denture on a hard surface or if the denture wearer inadvertently bites on a particularly hard particle.

Keywords: Denture base material, injection molding, mechanical property, physical property pressure molding


How to cite this article:
Shibat Al Hamd YA, Dhuru VB. Physical and mechanical properties of pressure-molded and injection-molded denture base acrylics in different conditions. Saudi J Oral Sci 2014;1:65-70

How to cite this URL:
Shibat Al Hamd YA, Dhuru VB. Physical and mechanical properties of pressure-molded and injection-molded denture base acrylics in different conditions. Saudi J Oral Sci [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 18];1:65-70. Available from: http://www.saudijos.org/text.asp?2014/1/2/65/138463


  Introduction Top


Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resins are commonly used for the fabrication of denture bases, due to their good esthetics, simple processing and ease of repair. [1],[2] There are two possible reasons why acrylic denture bases fracture intraorally in clinical situations, processing shrinkage, and lack of adequate mechanical strength. Processing of acrylic denture bases involves curing reaction of the monomer-polymer mixture (dough) filled in a specially fabricated gypsum mold. The mold is then subjected to a thermal curing cycle to complete the polymerization reaction. During this reaction, acrylic bases undergo polymerization shrinkage as well as shrinkage due to cooling down to room temperature. Such processing shrinkage, which is unavoidable for these materials, may cause dimensional changes in the base during fabrication. These changes would lead to warpage and may result in improper fitting of the base over the oral tissues. This, in turn, may cause build-up of non-uniform stresses in the base resulting in the fracture of dentures under various loading conditions encountered in the mouth.

Traditionally, processing shrinkage of denture base acrylics fabricated by different methods has been investigated using dentures constructed on gypsum or metal models. [3-12] The topics of these investigations have included, technique of filling the mold with pressure packing, injection molding, and pouring types of resins [6],[9] and employed either heat cure, auto cure methods. [9],[12] The dimensional changes were measured by using various instruments such as calipers, micrometer, tool maker's microscope, pantograph, optical comparator. [3] The difficulty in making the measurements of extremely small magnitude clinically [6] and the inevitable nature of polymerization shrinkage [4] have been noted.

American Dental Association's Specification No. 12 includes tests for measuring the mechanical properties of bending deflection, transverse strength and modulus of elasticity. [13] The last two properties were alternately known as flexural strength and flexural modulus. Such tests have been employed by investigators in their original form or with some modifications to study different types of denture base materials. [14-23] Traditionally, the acrylic dough is packed in the mold space under pressure or using the technique of injection molding. In this study, processing shrinkage and mechanical properties of bending deflection at various load levels, flexural strength, and flexural modulus were measured for ProBase Hot and the two widely used materials - Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap. Lucitone 199 and ProBase Hot were processed by the standard, pressure packing, and heat-cure technique while SR-Ivocap was processed by injection molding and heat-cure technique. The hypothesis of this study is that ProBase Hot material is superior in physical and mechanical properties to Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare some of the physical and mechanical properties of two pressure molding (Lucitone 199 and Probase) and one injection molding (SR-Ivocap) denture base materials.


  Materials and Methods Top


Two pressure-molded acrylic denture base materials, Lucitone 199 and ProBase Hot, and an injection-molded material, SR-Ivocap, were used in this study. The first two materials were supplied in the form of a liquid-methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) polymer powder. SR-Ivocap was supplied in premeasured capsules containing powder and liquid in two separate chambers [Table 1].
Table 1: Denture base materials used in the study

Click here to view


Specimens for the processing shrinkage test

Sheets of 2 mm thick base plate wax were heated and sandwiched together to prepare rectangular patterns (60 mm × 55 mm × 6 mm). Two reference marks made on the surface of the pattern by pressing the two square ends of a caliper set 40 mm apart. The distance between the two reference marks was measured using a traveling microscope to the accuracy of 0.005 mm. Five wax patterns for Lucitone 199 and five for ProBase Hot were invested in the standard denture processing flasks. An additional five patterns were invested in the special flasks provided for SR-Ivocap the injection molding material. The respective manufacturer's instructions were followed for processing the acrylic plates. The pressure molded materials were processed using standard laboratory technique. The injection-molded material capsule (SR-Ivocap) was mixed in the apparatus supplied by the manufacturer for 5 minutes and the mix was allowed to cool on the bench for 25 minutes. The mixture was injected into the flask under pressure over a period of 10 minutes. The flasks were placed in the curing baths and were subjected to curing cycle as recommended by the manufacturer. Upon deflasking, the acrylic plates were removed finished and polished using the standard laboratory procedures employed for acrylic removable dentures. The plates were identified with appropriate code numbers.

Specimens for testing mechanical properties

Four specimens (50 mm × 10 mm × 2.5 mm) were machined from each acrylic plate. A total of 20 specimens for each material were fabricated [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. They were dried in air for 24 hours and stored in a jar containing a desiccating material Silica Gel until the time of testing.
Figure 1: Specimen for water sorption and transverse deflection Tests

Click here to view
Figure 2: Specimen for mechanical properties

Click here to view


Measurement of processing shrinkage

The acrylic plates were dried at room temperature for 1 week. The distance between the two marks on the plate was measured using a travelling microscope. The difference between the two measurements, the first one on the wax pattern and the second one on the processed acrylic plate indicated the amount of processing shrinkage.

Measurement of the flexure strength and flexure modulus and other mechanicalproperties

Seven of the 20 dried specimens for each material were subjected to three-point bending test. Each specimen was positioned in a special fixture and was supported at the ends on two, 2 mm diameter steel rods positioned 45 mm apart [Figure 3] and [Figure 4]. The fixture permitted placement of the load via a third rod located above the center of the specimen. Incremental load was applied on to the specimen at a cross-head speed of 5.1 mm/min (0.2 in/min) until it fractured. [13]
Figure 3: Three point bending test

Click here to view
Figure 4: Specimen under bending defliction

Click here to view


The values of deflection were recorded to the accuracy of 0.01 mm at various increments of load levels as designated in the American Dental Association (ADA) Specification No. 12. [13] These levels ranged from 1.0 kg (9.81 N) to 10.0 kg (98.10 N) with increments of 0.5 kg (4.90 N).

Flexure strength and flexure modulus under dry conditions were calculated using the peak values of load sustained by the specimens and applying the following two equations. [14]



Where FS = Flexure strength
P = Load at fracture
b = Width of specimen
d = Thickness of specimen



Where FM = Flexure modulus
P = Peak load
I = Distance between the two supports
y = Deflection
b = Width of specimen
d = Thickness of specimen

The weights of the remaining 13 specimens were recorded to the nearest 0.001 g. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 4 weeks and their weights were monitored weekly to ensure that they reached constant weight. At the end of this period, 7 out of the 13 specimens were subjected to the measurement of flexure strength and flexure modulus under water sorped condition. The remaining 6 specimens were stored in desiccators at room temperature for 4 weeks and their weights were monitored weekly to ensure they reached constant weight. At the end of this period, the specimens were measured for flexure strength and flexure modulus under desorped condition. [Figure 5] shows the summary of mechanical tests procedure. All the data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple range tests.
Figure 5: Summary of mechanical tests procedure

Click here to view



  Results Top


Processing shrinkage

Lucitone 199 showed the greatest processing shrinkage 0.55 ± 0.21% followed by ProBase Hot 0.49 ± 0.09% and SR-Ivocap0.34 ± 0.06%. No statistically significant difference between the three materials was observed [Table 2].
Table 2: Processing shrinkage

Click here to view


Bending deflection, flexure strength and flexure modulus

The mean deflection values for the three materials under dry, sorped, and desorped conditions are shown in [Table 3]. ProBase Hot displayed significantly less deflection values than those for the other two materials (P < 0.05).
Table 3: The mean and standard deviation of the maximum deflection of the three denture base materials (mm)

Click here to view


The mean values of flexure strength in Mega Pascal were 90.84 for Lucitone 199, 97.54 for SR-Ivocap, and 97.06 for ProBase Hot [Table 4].
Table 4: Mean and standard deviation values for flexural strength (in MPa)

Click here to view


The number of specimens that fractured at the maximum load for the three materials is presented in [Table 5]. Five percent specimens of Lucitone 199, 100% of ProBase Hot, and 25% of SR-Ivocap were fractured. The rest of the specimens remained intact at the maximum load level of 98.10 N. Since the percentage of specimens that fractured at maximum load for Lucitone and SR-Ivocap were low, no analysis of variance was performed on the data for flexure strength. The mean values of flexure modulus are presented in [Table 6]. ProBase Hot displayed significantly greater values than those for the other two materials (P < 0.05). [Figure 6] and [Figure 7] shows the differences in mean weight change in milligrams after water desorption and water sorption on acrylic denture material.
Figure 6: Water desorption

Click here to view
Figure 7: Water sorption

Click here to view
Table 5: Number of specimens fractured at the maximum load for the three Denture base materials at different conditions

Click here to view
Table 6: The mean and standard deviation values of flexure modulus for three denture base materials under different conditions (in MPa)

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The mean linear processing shrinkage of 0.55% for Lucitone 199 measured in this study was comparable with the previous findings of 0.5% [9] , 0.18-0.58% [12] 0.16-0.49% [4] , and 0.5-2.0%. [14] We found no significant difference between the three materials tested in the present study. The processing shrinkage is a net result of dimensional changes occurring in the material due to thermal changes and polymerization shrinkage. The distance between the reference marks in the wax pattern reproduced in gypsum investment was likely to increase slightly due to the setting expansion of the gypsum. During the peak temperature of the curing of acrylic, further expansion of the mold and the polymer could have caused an increase in the dimension. Concurrently, the polymerization shrinkage would diminish reference distance. Finally, cooling of the flask to room temperature would further reduce the reference distance causing processing shrinkage. Thus, the shrinkage observed from the wax pattern to the processed denture is a net result of a series of expansion and contraction phenomena related to temperature and polymerization.

For deflection and flexural strength, results showed a significant difference between the three materials. The Tukey's multiple range tests showed that ProBase Hot exhibited a significantly smaller mean deflection value than the other two materials. This indicates that the ProBase Hot is a relatively stiffer material than the other two denture base materials considered in the study as shown by the greater number of specimens fractured with the load range used in the study. The deflection values obtained in the present study for Lucitone 199 were in agreement with the findings of other studies. [17],[22] Meng and Latta reported 8.6 mm deflection at breakage. [21] For SR-Ivocap, deflection values were in agreement with the 8.48 mm reported by Murphy et al. [8] The mean flexure strength value for Lucitone 199 was similar to the findings of other studies, [16],[19] whereas the value for SR-Ivocap was similar to the findings reported by Uzun and Hersek. [23] However, these values differed from those reported by Memon et al. 83.6 ± 7.2 MPa [20] for a different brands of acrylic denture base material processed by compression technique. The flexure strength values obtained in the present study were in contrast with that reported by other studies of 69.4 ± 4.9 MPa, [15] 165.4 ± 13.7 MPa, [24] and 111 ± 35 MPa. [25] Although Lucitone 199 was also used in some of these studies, the variation in specimen configuration curing cycle and rate of load application may account for the reported differences in these studies. However, Lucitone 199 exhibited less stiffness and greater deformation compared to the traditional acrylic resin. [26]

The limitations of the study involved, only three types of materials were included and secondly, only the selected properties were studied. Both the limitations were due to the constraints of time and funding to conduct the investigation. The tested properties were selected for their relative significance in fabrication and clinical usage of dentures.

The clinical significance of investigation was that compared to Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap, ProBase Hot was tough and stiff material. Therefore, it is more likely to fracture readily if subjected to extreme loading conditions. Further investigations are needed which will include different types of denture based materials and test impact strength and changes in color due to aging.


  Conclusions Top


The three tested denture base acrylics did not show any significant differences in processing shrinkage. However, ProBase Hot showed significantly lower bending deflection values than Lucitone 199 and SR-Ivocap.

 
  References Top

1.Cheng YY, Cheung WL, Chow TW. Strain analysis of maxillary complete denture with three dimensional finite element method. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:309-18.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Hirajima Y, Takahashi H, Minakuchi S. Influence of a denture strengther on the deformation of a maxillary complete denture. Dent Mater J 2009;28:507-12.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Anderson GC, Schulte JK, Arnold TG. Dimensional stability of injection and conventional processing of denture base acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:191-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Chen JC, Lacefield WR, Castleberry DJ. Effect of denture thickness and curing cycle on the dimensional stability of acrylic resin denture bases. Dent Mater 1988;4:20-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Craig R, O'Brien W, Powers J. Dental Materials Properties and Manipulation. 5 th ed. St. Louis, USA: CV Mosby Co.; 1991.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.de Gee AJ, ten Harkel EC, Davidson CL. Measuring procedure for the determination of the three-dimensional shape of dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:149-53.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Goodkind RJ, Schulte RC. Dimensional accuracy of pour acrylic resin and conventional processing of cold curing resin bases. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:662-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Murphy WM, Bates JF, Huggett R. A comparative study of three denture base materials. Br Dent J 1982;152:273-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Skinner EW, Cooper EN. Physical properties of denture resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1943;20:1845-52.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Strohaver RA. Comparison of changes in vertical dimension between compression and injection molded complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:716-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Takamata T, Setcos JC. Resin denture bases: Review of accuracy and methods of polymerization. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2:555-62.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Woelfel JB, Paffenbarger GC, Sweeney WT. Clinical evaluation of complete dentures made of 11 different types of denture base materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1965;70:1170-88.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Revised American Dental Association Specification No. 12 for denture polymers. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;90:451-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Craig RG, Ward ML. Restorative Dental Materials. 10 th ed. Mosby; 1997.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Dhir G, Berzins DW, Dhuru VB, Periathamby AR, Dentino A. Physical properties of denture base resins potentially resistant to Candida adhesion. J Prosthodont 2007;16:465-72.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Shaull KL, Laffoon JE, Qian F. Flexural and fatigue strengths of denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:47-51.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Dixon DL, Ekstrand KG, Breeding LC. Transverse strengths of three denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:510-3.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Ilbay SG, Guvener S, Alkumru HN. Processing dentures using a microwave technique. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:103-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Machado C, Sanchez E, Azer SS, Uribe JM. Comparative study of the transverse strength of three denture base materials. J Dent 2007;35:930-3.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Memon MS, Yunus N, Razak AA. Some mechanical properties of a highly cross-linked, microwave-polymerized, injection-molded denture base polymer. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:214-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Meng TR Jr, Latta MA. Physical properties of four acrylic denture base resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;15:86-93.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Stafford GD, Handley RW. Transverse bends testing of denture base polymers. Dent Mater Res 1980;14:359-71.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Uzun G, Hersek N. Comparison of the fracture resistance of six denture base acrylic resins. J Biomater Appl 2002;17:19-29.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Kurata S, Yamazaki N. Mechanical properties of poly(alkyl alpha-fluoroacrylate)s as denture-base materials. J Dent Res 1989;68:481-3.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Regis RR, Zanini AP, Della Vecchia MP, Silva-Lovato CH, Oliveira Paranhos HF, De Souza RF. Physical properties of an acrylic resin after incorporation of an antimicrobial monomer. J Prosthodont 2011;20:372-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Ajaj-Alkordy NM, Al Saadi MH. Elastic modulus and flexural strength comparisons of high impact and traditional denture base acrylic resins. Saudi Dent J 2014;26:15-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3260    
    Printed99    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded383    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]