A variety of Surface Techniques, Several Denture Base Repair Properties Were Investigated

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1462422/v2

PDF

Research Article

A variety of Surface Techniques, Several Denture Base Repair Properties Were Investigated

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1462422/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Heat-cure acrylic resin is used, and six sets of specimens were cut in guiding mode with a conventional positioning clamp. To evaluate impact strength, silicon sheets with diameters of (50×5×4) mm were created. On an alternative bending fatigue machine, specimens with a diameter of (70× 10 ×2.5) mm were evaluated. The monomer solvent's impact bond strength was found to be higher than that of the thinner solvent and the acetone solvent. Thiner solvents and monomer solvents have a lower fatigue bond strength than acetone.

Acrylic resin

Repairing

Impact bond strength

Fatigue bond strength

Surface treatments

A multitude of resins were used in dental procedures for the production of dental prosthesis ever since 1930s, and their success has already been based on physical, chemical, and biological qualities. Initially, denture bases were made of nitrocellulose, vulcanite, venylplastics, phenol formaldehyde, and porcelain. The acrylic resins have been so favorably embraced by the practitioner that by 1946, methyl methacrylate polymers or copolymers were used to make 98% percent of all denture bases. (1)

Initially, the conversion of the monomer to polymer, that is commonly accomplished using a hot water bath or a microwave, is needed for the polymerization of such a resin (2, 3). Interest for the good properties, suitable strength, poor water sorption, poor solubility, in moreover to being free of toxicity, easy repair ability, the ability to reproduce accurately the features and size of pattern, and easiness of plaster molds and processing technique have all contributed to the success of acrylic resin as denture bases (4, 5). Denture breaking is frequently caused by inadequate design, production, and/or material selection. Denture fails beyond the mouth as a consequence of the prosthesis being ejected from the mouth during coughing or falling the denture. Excessive gripping pressure within the mouth can potentially cause fractures (6, 7). Cracks with in midline of maxillary full dentures seem to be more frequent (6, 8). Moreover, instead of in the middle of the restoration, denture failures frequently develop near the junction of past and present materials (9).

The goal of prosthesis repair is to restore the natural form and strength of the denture for the least amount of money and time feasible. A number of treatments and materials were used to repair frayed prosthesis. To repair damaged acrylic resin prostheses, auto polymerized acrylic resin, heat curing acrylic resin, and, most recently, visible light-curing acrylic resin are utilized (10, 11) The rate of acrylic resin prosthesis failure because of broken has been shown to be accepted (12).

Acrylic plastic has long been the most popular and well-liked of all denture base materials, accounting for over 95% of all plastics used in prosthodontics (13, 14). Metallic and non-metallic materials are the two types of materials utilized as denture foundations (15, 16). Nothing has yet been found that can match the appearance of the soft tissues of the mouth as well as acrylic resin. It is not only visually beautiful when first placed in the mouth, but it also retains its beauty over time provided the patient follows a simple cleaning and hygienic care regimen (17). Such dental resins are frequently given in two parts: a liquid monomer called methyl methacrylate (MMA) and a powder called polymer (18).

The purpose of this research is to test the fatigue bond strength and impact bond strength of light-cured acrylic resins in denture repair using various chemical solvents such as acetone, monomer, and thinner (in vitro).

Heat-cur acrylic resin was used with carefully prepared molds to create six sets of specimens, as directed by the manufacturer (5 specimens for each cured polymerization). A powder and liquid combination is created at room temperature (±23ºC) and allowed to reach the dough phase for 20 minutes. After the molds have been entirely filled with dough resin. Acrylic resins that have been heat-polymerized are put into molds and treated in according to the manufacturer's specifications. The acrylic denture base material was cured simply immersing the clamped flask in water and completing a quick curing cycle (1.5 hour at 74ºC followed by half hour at 100ºC) according to ADA standard No.12;1999 (19). Once curing was complete, The flask was allowed to cool slowly before being used before deflasking at normal temperature. After then, the specimens were taken out of the stone mold. All of the flatter form access was removed with a straight acrylic bur. The surfaces would be smoothed with a stone bur, then sanded to remove any remaining tiny scratches. A bristle brush and pumice were used to polish on the lathe polishing machine. A glossy sheen was obtained by polishing the surface with a wool brush and soap. The specimen is squeezed in 74°C water for 8 hours (20).

In guiding, specimens were cut using a consistent positioning jig. Cut surfaces were produced by abrading under water perpendicular to the surface and parallel to each other specimens' long axis silicone carbide paper to duplicate roughing of the denture surface repairing using laboratory burs. Ends of specimens bathed in various solvents (Figure 1) (acetone, thiner, and monomer before repair).

1. Perform an impact bond strength test: To evaluate the impact bond strength, silicone sheets with a width of (50× 5× 4) mm were made. Specimens were created and stored in distilled water at 37°C until they were totally saturated (2 weeks). The impact samples were collected out of the water and maintained in the air for an hour before being tested (19). Impact bond strength is generally determined by the amount of work required to fracture a test piece. The testing machine was a charpy type machine tester, with varying weight tubs (pendulums) depending on the strength of the materials to be tested. A swinging pendulum anchored the specimen at two ends and kept it in position in the centre of the tested section; the average readings provided the impact energy in joules. The quantity of energy received by the specimen is shown in Figure 2.

2. A (Hi-Tech company, England) alternative bending fatigue machine was used to test the ten samples with a dimension of (70×10×2.5) mm. Millions of cycles might be done in a couple of hours because of the tremendous speeds. The drawback is that complete reversal is the sole stress management option accessible. A new form of fatigue machine was invented to overcome this problem, in which a cantilever could be deflected to apply varying bending forces on it. Figure 3 shows how the free end of a cantilever is propelled up and down using a reciprocating mechanism. Statistical analysis by ANOVA F-test.

As demonstrated in Table 1, the impact strength of monomer solvent (3.16 ± 0.59) is stronger than that of thiner solvent (2.29 ± 0.65) and acetone solvent (1.98 ± 0.99). This is consistent with the findings of (21, 22), who observed that adding monomer solvent material to both old and fresh acrylic enhanced stiffness, toughness, and chemical bond cohesion.

As indicated in Table 2, the fatigue strength of the acetone solvent (7760 ± 136) was larger than that of the thiner solvent (980 ± 887) and monomer solvent (221 ± 129). Our findings corroborated those of (23–26,) who found that certain solvent materials for treatment strengthened the cohesiveness acrylic resin, both old and new, resulting in a fatigue life value larger than the acrylic resin. Acetone, thiner, and monomer were utilized as solvents, and the results of all surface treatments showed a substantial difference at (P- value).

The process of creating a new prosthesis can be both costly and time-consuming. As a result, repairing a denture, either as a temporary or permanent solution, is a popular strategic approach (27). The focus is on restoring the denture's original strength while preventing future fracture progression.

Despite this, fractures in restored specimens frequently appear as a result of stress between the original base and repair materials, rather than at the core of a repair, in which the stress is focused. This finding indicates that, independent of the technique or material utilized to execute the repair, maximum stress occurs at the junction of new and old components throughout strength testing (28). Furthermore, the low bond strength values compared to the conventional denture base may be attributed to the differences in the polymerization reaction during processing, which is condensation polymerization in the nylon base in comparison with the addition polymerization in the repair materials (29).

According to several studies, monomer processing of the repair surface increased bond strength due to the impact on surface morphology after monomer administration, resulting in binding between the denture base resin and repair resin (30, 31) and thus increasing bond strength. Moreover, contact with monomer may cause an acrylic resin to weaken, allowing minor cracks to expand faster as well as producing pits in the bonded surface. Monomer coating was utilized as a control group in this investigation since it is commonly used as a traditional approach during chemical surface treatments(32, 33).

The monomer solvent's impact bond strength was found to be higher than that of the thinner solvent and the acetone solvent. Thiner solvents and monomer solvents have a lower fatigue bond strength than acetone. Acetone, thiner, and monomer were utilized as solvents, and the results of all surface treatments revealed substantial changes in mean value.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was conducted on samples in laboratory (in vitro study).

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

During this time, the studies conducted in this research region could be publicly disclosed. On this sensible idea, it would be provided by the respective writer (Ibrahim H. Alfahdawi).

Competing Interests

The author does not have any competing interests to disclose.

Funding

Not applicable

Contributions of the Authors

The author confirm that all experimental protocols and methods have been conducted on samples in laboratory (in vitro), and were not conducted on human being, that's why no ethical approval was needed to be provided.

Acknowledgments

The author appreciates the assistance of Al-Maaref University College and the department of dentistry.

Philips, R.W. (1991)Skinners Science of Dental Materials, 9th ed, pp:177–213, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.
Nishii M. (1968): Studies on the curing of denture base resins with microwave irradiation with particular reference to heat curing resins. J. Osaka Dent Univ.:2:23–40. [Cited by Wallace et al, 1991].
Kimura H, Teraoka F, and Saito T. (1984): Applications ofmicrowave for dental technique (part 2): Adaptability of curedacrylic resins J. Osaka. Dent. Sch: 24:21–29.[Cited by Wallaceet.al., 1991].
Ibrahim H. ALFAHDAWI*, Sura A. JABER, Anes A ALSHAMAA, Evaluation of the Tensile, Compressive Strengths and Surface Hardness of Reinforced Heat Cured Acrylic Resins with Glass Fibers, Lat. Am. J. Pharm. 40 (special issue): 216 – 20 (April 2021)
Ibrahim H. Alfahdawi, Effect Type of Flasking Technique and Investing Materials on Movements of Teeth during Complete Denture Construction, International Medical Journal Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 516–519, December 2019
HD Stipho and AS Stipho, Effectiveness and durability of repaired acrylic resin points, J Prosthet Dent 58 (1987) pp:249–253. Abstract, PDF (404 K), View Record in Scopus, Cited By in Scopus
GL Polytzois, Andreopoulos and PK Lagouvards, Acrylic rwsin denture repair with adhesive resin and metal wires: effects on strength parameters, J Prosthet Dent 75 (1996), pp:381–387.
MS Beyli& IA von Fraunhofer, An analysis of causes of fracture of acrylic resin dentures, J Prosthet Dent 46 (1981) pp:238–241). Abstract, PDF (388 K) View Record in Scopus, Cited By in Scopus.
Cohen, FA Colazzi and B Birns, Strength of denture repairs as influenced by surface treatment, J Prosthet Dent 52 (1984), pp:844–848. Abstract
Ghassan Abdul-Hamid Naji, Influence of Various Chemical Surface Treatments, Repair Materials, and Techniques on Transverse Strength of Thermoplastic Nylon Denture Base, International Journal of Dentistry / 2020.
SevdaAtalayaGülceÇakmakbManriqueFonsecacMartinSchimmelcdBurakYilma, Effect of thermocycling on the surface properties of CAD-CAM denture base materials after different surface treatments, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, Volume 121, September 2021, 104646.
Cunningham JL, (1993): Bond Strength of denture teeth to acrylic base. J. Dent. 21: 274–280.
Craig RG (1997): Restorative Dental Materials. 10thed. Louis. The C. V. Mosby Co. PP127- 136, 500–540.
Craig R.G. (2002): Prosthetic Applicationsof Polymers, Chap. (21) 636–656.
Anthony DH, and reyton FA (1962): Dimensional accuracy of various denturebase materials. J. Prosth. Dent.l2 (l):67–81.
Chevitarese O, Craig RG and Peyton FA (1962): Properties of various types of denture – base plastics. J. prosth. Dent. 12 (4): 711–719.
Smith FT, and Powers JM.(1991):In vitro properties of lightpolymerized reline materials. Int. J. prosthodont:4:445–448.
Phillips RW. (1984): Elements of dental materials. 4th ed. W.B. Saunders Co. pp:130–150.
American Dental Association, Reaffirmed, 1999, American Dental Association Specification No. 12 for denture base polymers. J Am. Dent. Asso. 1975, 23, PP: 451-8.
Ozen. A. Ugurural, Mehment Dalkiz and Bedri Beydemir, 2006, The carbon fiber- reinforced acrylic resin denture base materials on oral epithelial cells and fibroblasts, Vol. 33, Issu 9, PP: 666 – 73, September.
Jagger, R.G., Jagger, S.M. Allen and A. Harrison, 2002, An investigation into the transvers and impact strength of high strength denture base acrylic resins, J. oral rehabil. 29, PP: 263–267, full text via cross ref |View record in scpus| cited by in scopus (7)
D.Jagger D., A. Harrison, R. Gagger and P. Miward, 2003, The Effect of Addition of Poly methyl. Methacrylate(methy1 mthacrylat fibers on some properties of high strength heatcured acrylic resin denture base material, Journal of oral rehabilitation 30:3, 231–235.
Cardash HS, Applebaum B, Baharav H, and Librman R. (1990): The effect of retention grooves on tooth-denture base bond. J. Prosth. Dent.: 64(4):492–496.
Takahashi Y, Chai J, Takahashi T, and Habu T.(2000): Bond strength of denture teeth to denture base resins. Int. J. Prosthodont: 13(l):59–65.
Abu-Anzeh RH. (2003): Evaluation of tensile bond strength of tooth denture base resin as a function at different surface treatments and Baghdad.
Ibrahim Hamad Al-Fahdawi, Evaluation of Fatigue and Impacted bond Strengths of Denture Base Repaired by Using Different Type of Surface Treatment, Tikrit Journal for Dental Sciences 1(2015)
E. T. L. Ng, L. H. H. Tan, B. S. H. Chew, and H. P. Y.,“Shear bond strength of microwaveable acrylic resin fordenture repair,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 31, no. 8,pp. 798–802, 2004
C. Shen, F. A. Colaizzi, and B. Birns, “Strength of denturerepairs as influenced by surface treatment,” Journal ofProsthetic Dentistry, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 844–848, 1984
Craig R. G., Powers J. M., O’Brien W. J. Restoration Dental Material. 11th. St. Louis, MO, USA: Mosby; 2006.
Shimizu H, Ikuyama T, Hayakawa E, Tsue F, Takahashi Y. Effect of surface preparation using ethyl acetate on the repair strength of denture base resin. Acta Odontol Scand 2006; 64: 159–163.
Olvera N, de Rijk WG. Effect of surface treatments on the repair strength of a light-activated denture repair resin using censored data. Dent Mater 1994; 10: 122–127.
Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. p. 237–271.
Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R. Wetting the repair surface with methyl methacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized resin. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72: 639–643

Table 1: Descriptive of Impact Strength

Solvent	Acetone	Thiner	Monomer
Mean	1.985	2.499	3.162
SD	0.998	0.658	0.597

ANOVA F-test=2.772 P=0.049 P<0.05 Significant

Table 2: Descriptive of Fatigue Strength

Solvent	Acetone	Thiner	Monomer
Mean	9800	77600	2210
SD	8874	1366	1298

ANOVA F-test=0.957 P=0.412 P>0.05 Non Significant

No competing interests reported.

PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
04 May, 2022
Reviews received at journal
21 Apr, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Apr, 2022
Reviews received at journal
20 Apr, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
20 Apr, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
20 Apr, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
20 Apr, 2022
Editor invited by journal
14 Apr, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
14 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
02 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

A variety of Surface Techniques, Several Denture Base Repair Properties Were Investigated

Status:

Version 2

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Procedures

Results And Discussions

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Tables

Competing Interests

Status:

Version 2