Comparison of polymer-based temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials by diametral tensile strength
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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 (∅. 4 mm × 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 (α= 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.
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 (∅. 4 mm × 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 (α= 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.
참고문헌 (19)
- Kim SH, "In vitro study of edge-strength of provisional polymer-based crown and fixed partial denture materials", Dent Mater, 23, pp.1570~1573 (2007)
- Haselton DR, "Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins", J Prosthet Dent, 87, pp.225~228 (2002)
- Koumjian JH, "Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations", J Prosthet Dent, 64, pp.654~658 (1990)
- Donovan TE, "Physical properties of acrylic resin polymerised by four different techniques", J Prosthet Dent, 54, pp.522~524 (1985)
- Gegauff AG, "Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics", J Prosthet Dent, 58, pp.23~29 (1987)
- Khan Z, "The physical properties of a visible light-cured temporary fixed partial denture material", J Prosthet Dent, 60, pp.543~544 (1988)
- Craig RG, "Mechanical properties. Restorative dental materials. 10th", pp.56~103 (1997), Mosby
- Osman YI, "Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials", J Prosthet Dent, 70, pp.94~96 (1993)
- Ireland MF, "In vitro mechanical property comparison of four resins used for fabrication of provisional fixed restorations", J Prosthet Dent, 80, pp.158~162 (1998)
- Kim SH, "Effect of glass-fiber reinforcement and water storage on fracture toughness of polymer-based provisional crown and FPD materials", Int J Prosthodont, 17, pp.318~322 (2004)
- Asmussen E, "Hardness and strength versus quantity of remaining double bonds", Scand J Dent Res, 90, pp.484~489 (1982)
- Combe CE, "Mechanical properties of direct core build up materials", Dent Mater, 15, pp.174~179 (1999)
- Cho GC, "Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials", J Prosthet Dent, 82, pp.272~276 (1999)
- Lange C, "The influence of shelf life and storage conditions on some properties of composite resins", J Prosthet Dent, 49, pp.349~355 (1983)
- Jandt KD, "Mechanical properties and radiopacity of experimental glass-silica-metal hybrid composites", Dent Mater, 18, pp.429~435 (2002)
- Pilliar RM, "Porous calcium polyphosphate scaffolds for bone substitute applications-in vitro characterization", Biomaterials, 22, pp.963~972 (2001)
- Coury TL, "The diametral tensile strengths of various composite resins", J Prosthet Dent, 45, pp.296~299 (1981)
- McKinney JE, "Wear and microhardness of glass-ionomer cements", J.Dent.Res., 66, pp.1134~1139 (1987)
- British Standards Institution, "British Standards Specification for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement BS 6039", 4~ (1981)