Brian C Aguirre1, Jenn-Hwan Chen2, Elias D Kontogiorgos3, David F Murchison4, William W Nagy5. 1. Former Graduate Prosthodontics Resident, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 2. Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: Tonberry321@hotmail.com. 3. Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 4. Adjunct Professor, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 5. Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: High flexural strength is one of the desirable properties for denture base resins, yet only few studies have evaluated the physical properties of newer denture bases such as computer-aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled products. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the flexural strength of 3 different types of denture base resins: compression molded, injection molded, and CAD-CAM milled. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups (n=10) of acrylic denture base resins were tested: injection molded, compression molded, and CAD-CAM milled resin. ISO-compliant, rectangular specimens were fabricated (64×10×3.3 mm) (n=30). Specimens were stored in water for 1 week, and flexural strength was measured by using a 3-point bend test until failure. The Student t test was used to evaluate differences in the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity among specimen groups. The Bonferroni formula was used to set significance at α=.017 to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. RESULTS: The flexural strength of the CAD-CAM milled group was significantly higher than that of the other 2 groups (P<.001), while the strength of the compression molded group was significantly greater than that of the injection molded group (P<.001). The flexural modulus of the CAD-CAM group was significantly higher than that of the other 2 groups (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAD-CAM milled denture bases may be a useful alternative to conventionally processed denture bases in situations where increased resistance to flexural strength is needed.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: High flexural strength is one of the desirable properties for denture base resins, yet only few studies have evaluated the physical properties of newer denture bases such as computer-aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled products. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the flexural strength of 3 different types of denture base resins: compression molded, injection molded, and CAD-CAM milled. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups (n=10) of acrylic denture base resins were tested: injection molded, compression molded, and CAD-CAM milled resin. ISO-compliant, rectangular specimens were fabricated (64×10×3.3 mm) (n=30). Specimens were stored in water for 1 week, and flexural strength was measured by using a 3-point bend test until failure. The Student t test was used to evaluate differences in the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity among specimen groups. The Bonferroni formula was used to set significance at α=.017 to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. RESULTS: The flexural strength of the CAD-CAM milled group was significantly higher than that of the other 2 groups (P<.001), while the strength of the compression molded group was significantly greater than that of the injection molded group (P<.001). The flexural modulus of the CAD-CAM group was significantly higher than that of the other 2 groups (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAD-CAM milled denture bases may be a useful alternative to conventionally processed denture bases in situations where increased resistance to flexural strength is needed.
Authors: Eva Anadioti; Leen Musharbash; Markus B Blatz; George Papavasiliou; Phophi Kamposiora Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 2.757