J Adv Prosthodont.  2010 Mar;2(1):14-17. 10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.14.

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

• Ha SR
• Yang JH
• Lee JB
• Han JS
• Kim SH

• KMID: 1975172
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.14

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 (the empty set 4 mm x 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 Scheffe 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.

Keyword

Polymer-based temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials; Diametral tensile strength

MeSH Terms

Acrylic Resins
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
Collodion
Composite Resins
Crowns
Denture, Partial, Fixed
Methacrylates
Polymethacrylic Acids
Tensile Strength
Acrylic Resins
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
Collodion
Composite Resins
Methacrylates
Polymethacrylic Acids

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Dimension of cylinder-shaped specimen. φ = 4 mm, L = 6 mm, P = load.

Reference

1. Kim SH, Watts DC. In vitro study of edge-strength of provisional polymer-based crown and fixed partial denture materials. Dent Mater. 2007. 23:1570–1573.

2. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:225–228.

3. Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1990. 64:654–658.

4. Donovan TE, Hurst RG, Campagni WV. Physical properties of acrylic resin polymerised by four different techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1985. 54:522–524.

5. Gegauff AG, Pryor HG. Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1987. 58:23–29.

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. 60:543–544.

7. Craig RG. Mechanical properties. Restorative dental materials. c1997. 10th. St. Louis: Mosby;56–103.

8. Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1993. 70:94–96.

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. 80:158–162.

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. 17:318–322.

11. Asmussen E. Hardness and strength versus quantity of remaining double bonds. Scand J Dent Res. 1982. 90:484–489.

12. Combe CE, Shaglouf AMS, Watts DC, Wilson NHF. Mechanical properties of direct core build up materials. Dent Mater. 1999. 15:174–179.

13. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. 82:272–276.

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. 49:349–355.

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. 18:429–435.

16. Pilliar RM, Filiaggi MJ, Wells JD, Grynpas MD, Kandel RA. Porous calcium polyphosphate scaffolds for bone substitute applications-in vitro characterization. Biomaterials. 2001. 22:963–972.

17. Coury TL, Miranda FJ, Duncanson MG. The diametral tensile strengths of various composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1981. 45:296–299.

18. McKinney JE, Antonucci JM, Rupp NW. Wear and microhardness of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res. 1987. 66:1134–1139.

19. British Standards Institution. British Standards Specification for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement BS 6039. 1981. 4.