The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of polymer-based temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials by diametral tensile strength

  • Ha, Seung-Ryong (Department of Dentistry, School of Medicine, Ajou University) ;
  • Yang, Jae-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jai-Bong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2010.02.25
  • Accepted : 2010.03.10
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diametral tensile strength of polymer-based temporary crown and fixed partial denture (FPD) materials, and the change of the diametral tensile strength with time. MATERIAL AND METHODS. One monomethacrylate-based temporary crown and FPD material (Trim) and three dimethacrylate-based ones (Protemp 3 Garant, Temphase, Luxtemp) were investigated. 20 specimens (${\phi}\;4\;mm\;{\times}\;6\;mm$) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups (Group I: Immediately, Group II: 1 hour) according to the measurement time after completion of mixing. Universal Testing Machine was used to load the specimens at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, the multiple comparison Scheff$\acute{e}$ test and independent sample t test ($\alpha\;=\;0.05$). RESULTS. Trim showed severe permanent deformation without an obvious fracture during loading at both times. There were statistically significant differences among the dimethacrylate-based materials. The dimethacrylate-based materials presented an increase in strength from 5 minutes to 1 hour and were as follows: Protemp 3 Garant (23.16 - 37.6 MPa), Temphase (22.27 - 28.08 MPa), Luxatemp (14.46 - 20.59 MPa). Protemp 3 Garant showed the highest value. CONCLUSION. The dimethacrylate-based temporary materials tested were stronger in diametral tensile strength than the monomethacrylate-based one. The diametral tensile strength of the materials investigated increased with time.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim SH, Watts DC. In vitro study of edge-strength of provisional polymer-based crown and fixed partial denture materials. Dent Mater 2007;23:1570-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.023
  2. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:225-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121406
  3. Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:654-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90290-S
  4. Donovan TE, Hurst RG, Campagni WV. Physical properties of acrylic resin polymerised by four different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:522-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90425-1
  5. Gegauff AG, Pryor HG. Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:23-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(87)80137-3
  6. Khan Z, Razavi R, von Fraunhofer JA. The physical properties of a visible light-cured temporary fixed partial denture material. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:543-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90210-7
  7. Craig RG. Mechanical properties. Restorative dental materials. 10th. St. Louis:Mosby; c1997. p. 56-103.
  8. Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:94-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90038-P
  9. Ireland MF, Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Ramp MH. In vitro mechanical property comparison of four resins used for fabrication of provisional fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:158-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70104-0
  10. Kim SH, Watts DC. Effect of glass-fiber reinforcement and water storage on fracture toughness of polymer-based provisional crown and FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:318-22.
  11. Asmussen E. Hardness and strength versus quantity of remaining double bonds. Scand J Dent Res 1982;90:484-9.
  12. Combe CE, Shaglouf AMS, Watts DC, Wilson NHF. Mechanical properties of direct core build up materials. Dent Mater 1999;15:174-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00029-9
  13. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:272-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70079-X
  14. Lange C, Bausch JR, Davidson CL. The influence of shelf life and storage conditions on some properties of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:349-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90276-7
  15. Jandt KD, Al-Jasser AMO, Al-Ateeq K, Vowles RW, Allen GC. Mechanical properties and radiopacity of experimental glass-silica-metal hybrid composites. Dent Mater 2002;18:429-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00064-1
  16. Pilliar RM, Filiaggi MJ, Wells JD, Grynpas MD, Kandel RA. Porous calcium polyphosphate scaffolds for bone substitute applications-in vitro characterization. Biomaterials 2001;22:963-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00261-1
  17. Coury TL, Miranda FJ, Duncanson MG. The diametral tensile strengths of various composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:296-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90394-2
  18. McKinney JE, Antonucci JM, Rupp NW. Wear and microhardness of glass-ionomer cements. J. Dent. Res. 1987;66:1134-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660060801
  19. British Standards Institution, British Standards Specification for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement BS 6039,1981:4.