|
|
 |
|
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 7
| Issue : 1 | Page : 31-37 |
|
Effect of different edge profile, surface treatment, and glass fiber reinforcement on the transverse strength of denture base resin repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin: An In vitro study
Abubakkar Vasthare1, Sanath Shetty2, KK Kamalakanth Shenoy2, Mallika S Shetty2, Katheesa A Parveen3, Rajesh Shetty2
1 Thumbay Hospital, Dubai, UAE
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Orthodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
| Date of Web Publication | 29-May-2017 |
Correspondence Address:
Abubakkar Vasthare
Thumbay Hospital, Dubai
UAE
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jid.jid_80_16
 Abstract | | |
Background: This study is an effort to find the appropriate edge profile and surface treatment during repair of the fractured dentures, which can provide long-lasting results and can prevent the recurrence of the fracture. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the transverse strength of butt versus bevel edge profile with surface treatment and reinforced with glass fibers using autopolymerizing acrylic resin and to compare the samples surface treated with ethyl acetate and reinforced with glass fibers on butt and bevel edge profile. Materials and Methods: This study consisted of a sample size of 105, wherein 15 unfractured heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples were used as a control, 45 repaired samples of bevel edge profile, and 45 repaired samples of butt edge profile. These samples were further subdivided into groups and repaired using autopolymerizing acrylic resin, glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin, and with glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing resin surface treated with ethyl acetate, respectively. The repaired samples were tested for transverse strength on an Instron testing apparatus. The P value set at 0.05. Analysis was done using analysis of variance and Tukey's honest significant difference test. Transverse strength of samples, repaired after ethyl acetate surface treatment, was higher when compared to untreated samples (P = 0.001). Transverse strength of samples, repaired with ethyl acetate surface treatment and glass fiber reinforcement material, was the highest (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Ethyl acetate surface-treated bevel edge profile acrylic strips repaired using glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin showed greater transverse strength. Keywords: Acrylic resin, bevel joint, butt joint, ethyl acetate, glass fiber, repair
How to cite this article:
Vasthare A, Shetty S, Kamalakanth Shenoy K K, Shetty MS, Parveen KA, Shetty R. Effect of different edge profile, surface treatment, and glass fiber reinforcement on the transverse strength of denture base resin repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin: An In vitro study. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2017;7:31-7 |
How to cite this URL:
Vasthare A, Shetty S, Kamalakanth Shenoy K K, Shetty MS, Parveen KA, Shetty R. Effect of different edge profile, surface treatment, and glass fiber reinforcement on the transverse strength of denture base resin repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin: An In vitro study. J Interdiscip Dentistry [serial online] 2017 [cited 2023 Mar 30];7:31-7. Available from: https://www.jidonline.com/text.asp?2017/7/1/31/207157 |
| Clinical Relevance to Interdisciplinary Dentistry | |  |
Whenever broken dentures are to be repaired, the best and the most reliable repair can be accomplished with a bevel edge profile repair site, treated with ethyl acetate, and repaired with glass fiber.reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin.
| Introduction | | |
Poly (methyl methacrylate) resins have been the most widely used denture base material,[1] despite certain inherent drawbacks such as poor resistance to force of impaction, bending, and fatigue.[2] The fractured dentures need to be repaired. The repaired denture must have adequate strength, facilitate easy repair while retaining its dimensional accuracy, be inexpensive, and should match the original material in color. Heat polymerizing acrylic resin, by virtue of its superior strength, is the most suitable material for repair. However, the increased amount of time needed and the requirement of custom split cast gypsum mold limit its use as a repair material.[3],[4] Other materials available for repair are autopolymerizing acrylic resins [5] and light-polymerizing acrylic resins.[6],[7] Among these repair materials, autopolymerizing acrylic resin generally allows for an economical, simple, and quick repair. These materials have a common drawback of poor fracture resistance. To overcome these various reinforcements such as glass fibers,[8],[9] woven metal,[10] carbon fibers,[11] polyethylene fibers [10] and aramid fibers,[8],[10] and surface treatment of the fractured site with various materials such as chloroform,[12] methylene chloride,[13],[14] and acetone [14],[15] on the repair strength of poly (methyl methacrylate) have been advocated.
This study is an effort to assess a method of repair of the fractured dentures using autopolymerizing acrylic resin with two grooves at repair site between bevel and butt edge profiles, and to know the effect of increased number of grooves at different edge profiles in the repair site, to know whether the fracture site is in the parent material or the repair site, and to know the effect of surface treatment with ethyl acetate and glass fiber reinforcement.
| Materials and Methods | | |
A customized 3 piece brass flask, having two mold spaces of dimensions 65 mm × 10 mm × 2.5 mm (Flask A) [Figure 1], was used to prepare 15 heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples [16] (DPI Heat Cure)™, (Dental products of India Ltd., Batch No. 562) using conventional technique and used as a control group (Group R).
A customized 3 piece brass flask (Flask B) of dimensions 31 mm × 10 mm × 2.5 mm was used to prepare 45 heat polymerized acrylic resin strips of butt edge profiles (90°) and 45 heat polymerized acrylic resin strips of bevel edge profile (45°) using conventional technique [Figure 2]. Samples of dimensions 65 mm long, 10.0 ± 0.03 mm broad, and 2.50 ± 0.03 mm thick were used (as per ADA specification Number 12).[17] | Figure 2: Customized 3 piece brass flask (Flask B) (A) Bevel edge profile (B) Butt edge profile
Click here to view |
Preparation of the repair site
Each heat polymerized acrylic resin strips were having two grooves, 5 mm long and 2 mm wide, on one side which acted as the repair site. The repair sites were roughened by sand blasting, with 250 μm size of alumina particles for 10 s.[18] Following this, they were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath for 4 min, to remove any traces of alumina particles, and stored in distilled water [Figure 3]. A gap of 3 mm was kept between the two heat polymerized acrylic resin strips to be repaired.
Repair of heat polymerized acrylic resin strips using autopolymerizing acrylic resin: Repair method 1
Four heat polymerized acrylic resin strips were placed facing each other in the mold spaces in Flask A. Autopolymerizing acrylic resin was mixed in 3:1 ratio by volume.[18] When the dough stage was reached, the material was packed into the space present between two heat polymerized acrylic resin strips, and the flask was closed [Figure 4]. Trial closure was performed, and excess flash was removed. Final closure was done under a bench press, and it was kept under pressure (in bench press) for 2 h [19] to ensure complete polymerization. After this, the flask was opened to retrieve two repaired heat polymerized acrylic resin samples. These were finished with 240 Grit Silicon Carbide paper and were stored in distilled water for 48 h.[20] | Figure 4: Butt edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin strips in mold spaces of the Flask A, with repair sites facing each other autopolymerizing acrylic resin packed into the space between heat polymerized acrylic resin strips
Click here to view |
Repair of heat polymerized acrylic resin strips using glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin: Repair method 2
The concentration of the glass fibers used was 1% by volume of the polymer. StiphoHD [9] in his study compared the effect of varying the concentration of glass fiber on the repair strength of denture base and concluded that the strength was highest when the concentration of glass fiber was 1%. In accordance with the results of this study, 1% concentration of glass fiber was used in the present study for reinforcement. The glass fibers (ADVANTEX ™ Glass Fiber, Owens Corning India Ltd., Lot. No. 06148T304) (diameter-16.8 μm) were cut into 2 mm (approximately) segments and were mixed thoroughly with the monomer.
Four heat polymerized acrylic resin strips were placed facing each other in the mold spaces in Flask A. Required quantity of polymer was added to the monomer glass fiber mix. When the dough stage was reached, the material was packed into the space present between two heat polymerized acrylic resin strips. Polymerization was done as in repair method 1. Two repaired heat polymerized acrylic resin samples were retrieved and finished with 240 Grit Silicon Carbide paper and were stored in distilled water for 48 h.[20]
Repair of ethyl acetate surface-treated heat polymerized acrylic resin strips using glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin: Repair method 3
The repair sites were swabbed with ethyl acetate (Ethyl Acetate Pure™, Merck India Ltd., Batch No. S15S550624), for a period of 60 s,[20] after which they were washed with water and dried. Four heat polymerized acrylic resin strips were placed in the mold spaces of the Flask A, with repair sites facing each other and were repaired using glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin (® DPI-RR Cold Cure™, Dental products of India Ltd.) as is done in repair method 2 to obtain two repaired samples which were finished with 240 Grit Silicon Carbide paper and were stored in distilled water for 48 h.[20]
Group R: (control group): 15 heat polymerizing acrylic resin.
Repaired sample groups [Figure 5]: | Figure 5: Repaired butt and bevel edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples
Click here to view |
- Group A: 15 butt edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 1
- Group B: 15 butt edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 2
- Group C: 15 butt edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 3
- Group D: 15 bevel edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 1
- Group E: 15 bevel edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 2
- Group F: 15 bevel edge profile heat polymerized acrylic resin samples, repaired using repair method 3.
Testing of repaired samples for transverse strength
All the 90 repaired samples and 15 control samples were subjected to the 3-point bending test, at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min, at a 50 mm distance, with an Instron testing apparatus (model 4206, Instron Corp, Canton, MA, USA). The load was applied to the center of the 3 mm repaired area [Figure 6]. The loading was continued till fracture occurred, and the breaking load was noted in kilograms. These breaking load values were converted to transverse repair strength values in mega Pascal (MPa), which were then statistically analyzed, using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference test and the site of fracture occurrence was also compared.
Statistical analysis
“P” values:
- P < 0.05 - significant
- P < 0.01 - highly significant
- P < 0.001 - very highly significant
- P > 0.05 - nonsignificant.
The results were analyzed using software package SPSS software “version 7.0', IBM ®.
All the repaired samples were tested, for breaking load, on an Instron testing apparatus. Reading in the Instron testing apparatus, at the time of fracture, indicates the breaking load in kilograms. This was converted to transverse repair strength using the formula.[21]
S = 3PL/2bd2
Where, S = transverse strength
P = load at fracture
L = length between the end beams
b = width of specimen
d = thickness of the specimen.
The transverse strength values obtained were in kg/mm 2, which were converted into MPa (System International Unit) by multiplying with 9.8.
Force in kg/mm 2 × 9.8 = MPa
Reading in the Instron testing apparatus, at the time of fracture, indicates the breaking load in Kilograms. This was converted to transverse repair strength in MPa.[21]
The transverse strength values obtained from various groups were tabulated.
| Results | | |
[Table 1] shows descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation (SD) of each group. | Table 1: Descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation of each group
Click here to view |
One-way ANOVA used to analyze total data an F = 480.247 and P = 0.001s was found which was very highly significant.
The mean between seven groups was compared using one-way ANOVA, and the intercomparison between each group was done using Tukey's honest significance difference test.
[Table 2] shows transverse strength between groups.
The mean transverse strength of heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples, with bevel-shaped edge profile, repaired using glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin with ethyl acetate surface treatment (Group F – 139.948 MPa) was the highest. The mean transverse strength of all the repaired samples was less than the unfractured heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples (control – 162.06400 MPa). The comparison of the fracture sites in Groups A, B, and C. The maximum number of fracture sites was found to be at the interface between the parent material and the repair material (A – 86.67%, B – 86.67%, and C – 93.33%). The comparison of the fracture sites in Groups D, E, and F. The maximum number of fracture sites was found to be within the repair material (D – 86.67%, E – 93.33% and F – 93.33.
| Discussion | | |
This study is an effort to assess a method of repair of the fractured dentures using autopolymerising acrylic resin with two grooves at repair site between bevel and butt edge profiles. Furthermore, to know the fracture site is in the parent material or the repair site and to know the effect of surface treatment with ethyl acetate and glass fiber reinforcement.
Poly (methyl methacrylate) resin is extensively used as the material of choice for the fabrication of removable complete and partial dentures.[1] The fracture of acrylic resin dentures is an unresolved problem in prosthodontics. These fractured dentures need to be repaired either as an interim measure or sometimes even as a permanent measure.[4] Repair should not only be easy, fast, and economical but also match the original material in strength and color.[3],[4]
The mean transverse strength for control group (unfractured heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples) was obviously found to be highest (162.06400 MPa) as there was no introduction of repair material in the samples. The mean transverse strength of the groups with butt-shaped edge profile, i.e., A – 75.3035 MPa, B – 98.3143 MPa, and C – 116.8762 MPa, which was 46.46%, 60.66%, and 72.11% of the control group, respectively. The mean transverse strength of the groups with bevel-shaped edge profile, i.e., D – 89.3411 MPa, E – 126.3652 MPa, and F – 139.94 MPa, which was 55.12%, 77.97%, and 86.34% of the control group, respectively [Graph 1].
The transverse strength of repaired heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples, having two grooves (116.8762 MPa), with butt-shaped edge profile, was found to be greater than that of those repaired heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples having one groove (95.8140 MPa), with butt-shaped edge profile, repaired under the same condition. The “P” values between these were highly significant. This shows that the increase in transverse strength could be due to the increased interfacial bond area between the parent and repair material.
In this study, a gap of 3 mm was kept between the two heat polymerized acrylic resin strips to be repaired as, it reduces the degree of polymerization shrinkage, bulk of repair material, and the color difference between denture base and repair material.[19] Edge profile of the repair surface has been shown to have an influence on the fracture strength of the repaired joint.[5],[22] The transverse strength values of all samples with bevel edge profile (D – 89.3411 MPa, E – 126.3652 MPa, and F – 139.94 Mpa), repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin were higher than those samples with butt edge profile (A – 75.3035 MPa, B – 98.3143 MPa, and C – 116.8762 MPa), under the same repair conditions. This result was in accordance with the results of earlier studies done by Ward et al.[20] and Shen et al.[12] The geometry of 45° bevel, which is easy to achieve clinically, increases the interfacial bond area and shifts the interfacial stress pattern more toward a shear stress and away from the more damaging tensile stress,[20] which in turn could be the reason for the improved values in transverse strength than the groups with butt edge profile.
The transverse strength values of samples repaired with glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin (139.9480 MPa) were the highest when compared to the transverse strength values of samples repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (126.36520 MPa). The results of the present study are in close agreement to the findings of Keyf and Uzun,[23] who found that the transverse strength of the repaired heat polymerizing acrylic resin samples with glass fibers was 80% of the control. We can assume that the improvement in the transverse strength could be either due to the high modulus of elasticity of glass fibers (which receives most of the stresses without distortion) or because the glass fibers may prevent crack propagation or could be both.
The transverse strength values of samples repaired with ethyl acetate surface treatment and glass fiber reinforcement were the highest when compared to untreated samples. Ethyl acetate causes dissolution of poly (methyl methacrylate), thereby resulting in pitting of the surface it comes in contact, as evidenced by scanning electron microscope micrographs [Figure 7]. This surface morphology increases the mechanical interlocking of the repair material in addition to increasing the surface area for bonding and thus increases the repair strength.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] Another important aspect evidenced by this study was the site of fracture occurrence of the repaired samples. In Groups A, B, and C (butt shaped edge profile), most of the fractures occurred at the joint interface of parent and repair material. The possible reasons for this can be that even though the bond between the heat polymerizing acrylic resin and autopolymerizing acrylic resin is a chemical bond.[18] The butt-shaped edge profile shows less interfacial bond area, as compared to the bevel-shaped edge profile. Furthermore, the sharp angled surfaces of the butt-shaped edge profile increase the stress concentration, thus causing an adhesive failure and resulting in fracture.[24] | Figure 7: Scanning electron micrograph of surface of poly (methyl methacrylate) resin after sandblasting
Click here to view |
In Groups D, E, and F (bevel shaped edge profile), most of the fractures occurred in the repair material itself rather than at the interface as in case of butt-shaped edge profile. This is due to the cohesive failure of the repair material itself and not due to a failure of bond between the parent material and the repair material. Furthermore, the geometry of 45° bevel increases the interfacial bond area between the bonding of repair and parent material and shifts the interfacial stress pattern more toward a shear stress and away from the more damaging tensile stress.[20]
The SD of transverse strength of control group and Groups A, B, C, D, E, and F were found to be 4.0%, 5.29%, 4.5%, 3.9%, 6.6%, 3.1%, and 2.7% of their mean values, respectively. This clearly indicates that standard and uniform protocol for preparing, curing, and finishing of all test samples, the homogeneity of mix, presence of internal porosity, and the release of stresses during finishing and polishing procedures were maintained during the study.
In accordance to the results obtained in this study, whenever broken dentures are to be repaired, the best and the most reliable repair can be accomplished with a bevel edge profile repair site, treated with ethyl acetate, repaired with glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resin.
Limitations of the study
In this study, samples were prepared in accordance with ADA specification number 12, and the study was designed and carried out with utmost accuracy. The present study has certain limitations which are enlisted below.
- In spite of following the standard and uniform protocol for preparing, curing, and finishing all the test samples, the homogeneity of mix, presence of internal porosity, and the release of stresses during finishing and polishing procedures could not be controlled
- In the oral cavity, repaired denture base is exposed to forces of varying magnitudes acting in different directions. The same situation could not be simulated in this in vitro study
- The length of repair site tested in this study is short, in comparison to a fractured complete denture, which is generally long. Therefore, further investigations are required to evaluate repair strength under more closely simulated clinical conditions
- In the oral cavity, the curvature of the denture follows the contours of the anatomic tissues. The same curvature could not be simulated in this study, as rectangular acrylic strips were used.
Edge profile of the repair surface has been shown to have an influence on the fracture strength of the repaired joint.[13],[25] The transverse strength values of all samples with bevel-shaped edge profile (D – 89.3411 MPa, E – 126.3652 MPa, and F – 139.94 MPa), repaired with autopolymerizing acrylic resin were higher than those samples with butt-shaped edge profile (A – 75.3035 MPa, B – 98.3143 MPa, and C – 116.8762 MPa), under the same repair conditions [Graph 2]. This result was in accordance with the results of an earlier study done by Shen et al.[12] Beyli and von Fraunhofer [22] in their study found that traditional butt joint was inferior to the inverse knife edge, rabbet and ogee joints. Ward et al.[20] also investigated the effect of different types of repair surface designs and concluded that round and 45° bevel joints were statistically similar, and the transverse strength of butt joint was significantly less than that of the rounded and 45° bevel joint.
| Conclusion | | |
Within the limits of the present study and on the basis of results obtained, it may be concluded that:-
Repaired samples of bevel-shaped edge profile heat polymerizing acrylic resin show higher values of transverse strength as compared to repaired samples of butt-shaped edge profile heat polymerizing acrylic resin strips, repaired under same repair conditions as the geometry of 45° bevel increases the interfacial bond area and shifts the interfacial stress pattern more toward a shear stress and away from the more damaging tensile stress.
Surface chemical treatment with ethyl acetate improves the repair strength of autopolymerizing acrylic resin (repair material) as it causes pitting of the surfaces. This surface morphology increases the mechanical interlocking of the repair material in addition to increasing the surface area for bonding and thus increases the repair strength.
Glass fiber-reinforced autopolymerizing acrylic resins provide greatest repair strength because of the high modulus of elasticity of glass fibers, which receives most of the stresses without distortion and also prevents crack propagation.
Hence, for the repair of the fractured denture, the fractured edge of the denture should be given a bevel-shaped edge profile. Furthermore, grooves should be made of dimensions 5 mm long and 2 mm wide, at 2 mm intervals at the repair site, and it should be sandblasted and surface treated with ethyl acetate. The repair material should be reinforced with glass fibers, to enhance the strength of the repair of the fractured denture, which can provide long-lasting results and can prevent recurrence of the fracture.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Eick JD. Biological properties of denture base resins. Dent Clin North Am 1977;21:459-64.  |
| 2. | Kelly E. Fatigue failure in denture base polymers. J Prosthet Dent 1969;21:257-66. |
| 3. | Stipho HD, Stipho AS. Effectiveness and durability of repaired acrylic resin joints. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:249-53. |
| 4. | Ng ET, Tan LH, Chew BS, Thean HP. Shear bond strength of microwaveable acrylic resin for denture repair. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:798-802. |
| 5. | Stanford JW, Burns CL, Paffenbarger GC. Self-curing resins for repairing dentures: Some physical properties. J Am Dent Assoc 1955;51:307-15. |
| 6. | Andreopoulos AG, Polyzois GL, Demetriou PP. Repairs with visible light-curing denture base materials. Quintessence Int 1991;22:703-6. |
| 7. | Dar-Odeh NS, Harrison A, Abu-Hammad O. An evaluation of self-cured and visible light-cured denture base materials when used as a denture base repair material. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:755-60. |
| 8. | John J, Gangadhar SA, Shah I. Flexural strength of heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:424-7. |
| 9. | Stipho HD. Repair of acrylic resin denture base reinforced with glass fiber. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:546-50. |
| 10. | Kanie T, Fujii K, Arikawa H, Inoue K. Flexural properties and impact strength of denture base polymer reinforced with woven glass fibers. Dent Mater 2000;16:150-8. |
| 11. | DeBoer J, Vermilyea SG, Brady RE. The effect of carbon fiber orientation on the fatigue resistance and bending properties of two denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:119-21. |
| 12. | Shen C, Colaizzi FA, Birns B. Strength of denture repairs as influenced by surface treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:844-8. |
| 13. | Sarac YS, Sarac D, Kulunk T, Kulunk S. The effect of chemical surface treatments of different denture base resins on the shear bond strength of denture repair. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:259-66. |
| 14. | Nagai E, Otani K, Satoh Y, Suzuki S. Repair of denture base resin using woven metal and glass fiber: Effect of methylene chloride pretreatment. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:496-500. |
| 15. | Arima T, Nikawa H, Hamada T, Harsini. Composition and effect of denture base resin surface primers for reline acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:457-62. |
| 16. | Revised American Dental Association specification no. 12 for denture base polymers. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;90:451-8. |
| 17. | Colvenkar SS, Meena AA. In vitro evaluation of transverse strength of repaired heat cured denture base resins with and without surface chemical treatment. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2008;8:87-93. [Full text] |
| 18. | Mahajan H, Chandu GS, Mishra SK. An in vitro study of the effect of design of repair surface on the transverse strength of repaired acrylic resin using autopolymerizing resin. Niger J Clin Pract 2014;17:38-42. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 19. | George R, D'Souza M. Surface chemical treatment with ethyl acetate and repair of fractured denture base resins – An in-vitro analysis of transverse strengths. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2001;1:41-4. |
| 20. | Ward JE, Moon PC, Levine RA, Behrendt CL. Effect of repair surface design, repair material, and processing method on the transverse strength of repaired acrylic denture resin. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:815-20. |
| 21. | Hargreaves AS. The prevalence of fractured dentures. A survey. Br Dent J 1969;126:451-5. |
| 22. | Beyli MS, von Fraunhofer JA. Repair of fractured acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:497-503. |
| 23. | Keyf F, Uzun G. The effect of glass fibre-reinforcement on the transverse strength, deflection and modulus of elasticity of repaired acrylic resins. Int Dent J 2000;50:93-7. |
| 24. | Anusavice KJ. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 10 th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. p. 242. |
| 25. | Peter S. Essential of Preventive and Community Dentistry. 5 th ed. New Delhi: Arya Medi Publishing, Pvt Ltd; 1999. p. 605. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7]
[Table 1], [Table 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Effect of different surface treatments on surface roughness and flexural strength of repaired 3D-printed denture base: An in vitro study |
|
| Hamid Neshandar Asli, Samiye Rahimabadi, Yasamin Babaee Hemmati, Mehran Falahchai | | The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021; 126(4): 595.e1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Impact of different surface treatments and repair material reinforcement on the flexural strength of repaired PMMA denture base material |
|
| Mohammed M. GAD, Ahmed RAHOMA, Reem ABUALSAUD, Ahmad M. Al-THOBITY, Sultan AKHTAR, Mohamed A. HELAL, Fahad A. AL-HARBI | | Dental Materials Journal. 2020; 39(3): 471 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Evaluation of Transverse Strength of Heat Cure Denture Bases Repaired with Different Joint Surface Contours: An In Vitro Study
|
|
| Nallamilli Mamatha, Siripurapu Sravani, Praveen K Madineni, Rapolu Sisir, Saimadhavi Nallamilli, Jorige R Jyothy | | The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2020; 21(2): 166 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Influence of Different Repair Acrylic Resin and Thermocycling on the Flexural Strength of Denture Base Resin |
|
| Mohammed AlQahtani, Satheesh B. Haralur | | Medicina. 2020; 56(2): 50 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
