PURPOSE: Clinicians are still confused about the choice of repair method, which depends on factors such as the length of time required for processing, the mechanical strength of the repaired material, and the effect of stress concentration in the acrylic resins before the repair. The aim was to determine the impact and flexural strength characteristics, such as stress at yield, Young's modulus, and displacement at yield of denture base resins fractured and repaired by three methods using heat-, auto-, and visible light-polymerized acrylic resins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For impact and flexural strength tests, 18 rectangular specimens measuring 50 x 6 x 4 mm(3) and 64 x 10 x 3.3 mm(3), respectively, were processed using Impact 2000, Lucitone 550, Impact 1500, and QC-20 acrylic resins. Fracture tests were performed according to ISO1567:1999. Afterward, all fractured specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and then repaired with (1) the same acrylic resin used for specimen fabrication (n = 6), (2) an autopolymerized acrylic resin (TruRepair, n = 6), and (3) a visible light acrylic resin (Versyo.com, n = 6). The repaired specimens were again submitted to the same fracture tests, and the failures were classified as adhesive or cohesive. Data from all mechanical tests after repair by the different methods were submitted to two-way ANOVA, and mean values were compared by the Tukey test. RESULTS: All acrylic resins showed adhesive fractures after impact and flexural strength tests. Differences (p < 0.05) were found among repair methods for all acrylic resins studied, with the exception of displacement at yield, which showed similar values for repairs with auto- and visible light-polymerized acrylic resins. The highest values for impact strength, stress, and displacement at yield were obtained when the repair was made with the same resin the specimen was made of. CONCLUSION: Denture base acrylic resins repaired with the same resin they were made of showed greater fracture strength.
PURPOSE: Clinicians are still confused about the choice of repair method, which depends on factors such as the length of time required for processing, the mechanical strength of the repaired material, and the effect of stress concentration in the acrylic resins before the repair. The aim was to determine the impact and flexural strength characteristics, such as stress at yield, Young's modulus, and displacement at yield of denture base resins fractured and repaired by three methods using heat-, auto-, and visible light-polymerized acrylic resins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For impact and flexural strength tests, 18 rectangular specimens measuring 50 x 6 x 4 mm(3) and 64 x 10 x 3.3 mm(3), respectively, were processed using Impact 2000, Lucitone 550, Impact 1500, and QC-20 acrylic resins. Fracture tests were performed according to ISO1567:1999. Afterward, all fractured specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and then repaired with (1) the same acrylic resin used for specimen fabrication (n = 6), (2) an autopolymerized acrylic resin (TruRepair, n = 6), and (3) a visible light acrylic resin (Versyo.com, n = 6). The repaired specimens were again submitted to the same fracture tests, and the failures were classified as adhesive or cohesive. Data from all mechanical tests after repair by the different methods were submitted to two-way ANOVA, and mean values were compared by the Tukey test. RESULTS: All acrylic resins showed adhesive fractures after impact and flexural strength tests. Differences (p < 0.05) were found among repair methods for all acrylic resins studied, with the exception of displacement at yield, which showed similar values for repairs with auto- and visible light-polymerized acrylic resins. The highest values for impact strength, stress, and displacement at yield were obtained when the repair was made with the same resin the specimen was made of. CONCLUSION: Denture base acrylic resins repaired with the same resin they were made of showed greater fracture strength.