| Literature DB >> 24779020 |
Tae-Yub Kwon1, Jung-Yun Ha2, Ju-Na Chun2, Jun Sik Son3, Kyo-Han Kim1.
Abstract
Dental modeling resins have been developed for use in areas where highly precise resin structures are needed. The manufacturers claim that these polymethyl methacrylate/methyl methacrylate (PMMA/MMA) resins show little or no shrinkage after polymerization. This study examined the polymerization shrinkage of five dental modeling resins as well as one temporary PMMA/MMA resin (control). The morphology and the particle size of the prepolymerized PMMA powders were investigated by scanning electron microscopy and laser diffraction particle size analysis, respectively. Linear polymerization shrinkage strains of the resins were monitored for 20 minutes using a custom-made linometer, and the final values (at 20 minutes) were converted into volumetric shrinkages. The final volumetric shrinkage values for the modeling resins were statistically similar (P > 0.05) or significantly larger (P < 0.05) than that of the control resin and were related to the polymerization kinetics (P < 0.05) rather than the PMMA bead size (P = 0.335). Therefore, the optimal control of the polymerization kinetics seems to be more important for producing high-precision resin structures rather than the use of dental modeling resins.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24779020 PMCID: PMC3977089 DOI: 10.1155/2014/914739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the linometer with a resin sample placed between the glass slide and aluminum disc.
Figure 2SEM images of the PMMA particles of the control (a) and GL (b) (original magnification 3000x). All particles tested in this study were spherical-shaped with different sizes.
Figure 3PMMA particle size distribution.
Volume-based PMMA particle size distribution.
| Material | Median size* | Mean size† | SD‡ | Mode size§ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JT (Jet Tooth Shade, control) | 55.41 | 58.28 | 19.51 | 55.06 |
| PK (Pi-Ku-Plast) | 51.00 | 57.41 | 30.35 | 48.32 |
| DL (DuraLay) | 57.27 | 60.17 | 20.37 | 55.42 |
| FR (Fino Resin PR) | 64.89 | 74.80 | 44.57 | 63.31 |
| GP (GC Pattern Resin) | 110.15 | 116.27 | 53.74 | 124.80 |
| GL (GC Pattern Resin LS) | 125.71 | 127.12 | 59.70 | 143.32 |
All values are in μm. *The size that splits the volume distribution with half above and half below this diameter; †the volume mean diameter; ‡standard deviation for the frequency distribution; §the peak of the frequency distribution.
Figure 4Representative volumetric shrinkage/time graphs (recorded 1 minute after starting the mix).
Shrinkage data determined using a linometer.
| Material | Volumetric shrinkage (%) | Shrinkage in 10 seconds (%) | Overall time constant (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| JT | 6.15 ± 0.64 A | 0.53 ± 0.09 A | 316.82 ± 23.36 A |
| PK | 7.83 ± 1.57 AB | 0.77 ± 0.18 A | 120.56 ± 19.39 B |
| DL | 6.22 ± 1.24 A | 0.52 ± 0.10 A | 283.01 ± 28.91 C |
| FR | 7.11 ± 0.86 AB | 0.74 ± 0.12 A | 136.79 ± 19.41 B |
| GP | 8.70 ± 1.78 B | 1.57 ± 0.27 B | 78.43 ± 14.03 D |
| GL | 8.09 ± 1.91 B | 1.59 ± 0.29 B | 85.27 ± 6.85 D |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Within a row, values followed by different uppercase letters are statistically different (P < 0.05).
Figure 5Polynomial regression curves of volumetric shrinkage versus the median particle size (a), initial shrinkage (b), and overall time constant (c).