BACKGROUND: Fracture of provisional fixed partial denture (FPD) may jeopardize the success of provisional prosthodontic treatment phase and cause patient discomfort. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of the Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) resin and Bis-Acryl Composite (BAC) resin reinforced with the Polyethylene and Glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups (N=10) of each of the two materials were prepared for the fracture toughness test. Two groups had the different reinforcements and group without reinforcement served as the control. The mean fracture toughness (MPa.m½ ) was compared by One-way ANOVA, followed by the Scheffe analysis. Fracture toughness between fiber-reinforced PMMA and BAC resin was compared by the independent samples t test. RESULTS: For the controls, the fracture toughness for PMMA resin (0.91) was significantly lower than for the BAC resin (1.19). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher fracture toughness for both, PMMA (1.48) and BAC (1.82) resin, but the Polyethylene fibers did not (0.95 for PMMA and 1.23 for BAC resin). Among the reinforced groups, Silane impregnated Glass fibers showed highest fracture toughness for the BAC resin (1.82). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, Glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA and BAC resin produced highest fracture toughness. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in--vitro study, the use of Glass and Polyethylene fibers tested may be an effective way to reinforce resins used to fabricate fixed provisional restorations.
BACKGROUND:Fracture of provisional fixed partial denture (FPD) may jeopardize the success of provisional prosthodontic treatment phase and cause patient discomfort. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of the Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) resin and Bis-Acryl Composite (BAC) resin reinforced with the Polyethylene and Glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups (N=10) of each of the two materials were prepared for the fracture toughness test. Two groups had the different reinforcements and group without reinforcement served as the control. The mean fracture toughness (MPa.m½ ) was compared by One-way ANOVA, followed by the Scheffe analysis. Fracture toughness between fiber-reinforced PMMA and BAC resin was compared by the independent samples t test. RESULTS: For the controls, the fracture toughness for PMMA resin (0.91) was significantly lower than for the BAC resin (1.19). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher fracture toughness for both, PMMA (1.48) and BAC (1.82) resin, but the Polyethylene fibers did not (0.95 for PMMA and 1.23 for BAC resin). Among the reinforced groups, Silane impregnated Glass fibers showed highest fracture toughness for the BAC resin (1.82). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, Glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA and BAC resin produced highest fracture toughness. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in--vitro study, the use of Glass and Polyethylene fibers tested may be an effective way to reinforce resins used to fabricate fixed provisional restorations.
Authors: Denise Tornavoi de Castro; Raphael Dias Holtz; Oswaldo Luiz Alves; Evandro Watanabe; Mariana Lima da Costa Valente; Cláudia Helena Lovato da Silva; Andréa Cândido dos Reis Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.698