A Comparative Evaluation of Flexural Strength and Hardness of Different Provisional Fixed Restorative Resins With Varied Setting Reactions – An In Vitro Study
Evaluation Of Flexural Strength And Hardness Of Different Provisional Fixed Restorative Resins
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v8i2.1207Keywords:
Flexural strength, Hardness, Provisional restorationAbstract
Aim: The aim of this research work was to compare and evaluate the hardness and flexural strength of three different commercially available fixed provisional restorative resins. Objective: The objectives of this research work are, to assess whether setting mechanism of fixed provisional restorative resins has an effect on the physical and mechanical properties and to compare and contrast the flexural strength and hardness of three different fixed provisional restorative resins viz: a) Revotek LC(visible light cure resin – GC Corporation,Tokyo,Japan), 2) Tempspan (Dual cure resin – Pentron / wallingford, CT U.S.A), and c) Integrity (Self cure resin - Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE,U.S.A). Methods: Commercially available composite resin Revotek LC(GC India), Tempspan( Pentron), Integrity (Dentsply). Brass mould was fabricated according to ANSI standardization, and specimen size was 25x2x2 mm. Sample size was 75 (25 for each). Specimens was fabricated according to manufacture instruction. After the fabrication of specimens, was stored in artificial saliva, and then hardness & flexural strength was measured. The mean flexural strength and hardness of three materials was compared using ANOVA test and pair-Wise comparison was done using Tukey’s honesty significant (HSD) test. Results: There was statistically significant difrence found between all three provisional restorative materials for Hardness and Flexural strength. Conclusion: The highest average Hardness (Shore D) value was observed in Tempspan and lowest observed in Revotek LC and for flexural strength highest average value observed in Integrity and lowest observed in Revotek LC. [Bhargav N NJIRM 2017; 8(2):72-77]
References
2. Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(6):654-7.
3. Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(1):94-6.
4. Gegauff AG, Wilkerson JJ. Fracture toughness testing of visible light- and chemical-initiated provisional restoration resins. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(1):62-8.
5. Anusavice KJ. Philips’s science of dental materials.10th ed. Philadelphian; WB Saunders;1996;285-431.
6. Samadzadeh A, Kugel G, Hurley E, Aboushala A. Fracture strength of provisional restorations reinforced with plasma-treated woven polyethylene fiber. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:447- 450.
7. Ireland MF, Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Ramp MH. In vitro mechanical property comparison of four resins used for fabrication of provisional fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(2):158-62.
8. Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT, Jones AH. Microhardness of provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(5):525-8.
9. Luthardt RG, Stossel M, Hinz M, Vollandt R. Clinical performance and periodontal outcome of temporary crowns and fixed partial dentures: A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 32-39.
10. Young HM, Smith CT, Morton D. Comparative in vitro evaluation of two provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:129-32.
11. Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:225-8.
12. Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s science of dental materials.11th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;2003. Chapter 4.
13. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: Report of the committee on research in fixed prosthodontics of the academy of fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90: 474 – 497.
14. Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16 (4):381-4.
15. Hernandez EP ,Oshida Y, Platt JA,Andres CJ, Braco MT.Mechanical properties of four methacrylate-based resins for provisional fixed restorations. Bio Mater Eng.2004; 14 (1):107-22.
16. Yap, A.U.J., Mah, M.K.S., Lye, C.P.W. and Loh, P.L. Influence of Dietary Simulating Solvents on the Hardness of Provisional Restorative Materials. Dental Materials 2004; 20: 370-376).
17. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Flexural properties of prosthetic provisional polymers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2004;12(2):75-9.
18. Gratton D.G, Aquilino S.A. Interim restorations. Dent Clin N Am 2004; 48:487-497.
19. Akova, T., Ozkomur, A., and Uysal, H. Effect of Food-Simulating Liquids on the Mechanical Properties of Provisional Restorative Materials.2006 Dental Materials)
20. Yilmaz A, Baydas S. Fracture resistance of various temporary crown materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8(1):44-51.
21. Balkenhol M, Mautner MC, Ferger P, Wostmann B. Mechanical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials: chemical-curing versus dual-curing systems. J Dent 2008; 36 (1):15-20.
22. Greeta A.V.M. Geerts, Overturf J.H, Oberholzer T.G. The effect of different reinforcements on the fracture toughness of materials for interim restoration. J Prosthrt Dent 2008; 99:461-467).
23. Ewoldsen N, Sundar V, Bennett W, Kanya K, Magyar K. Clinical evaluation of a visible light-cured indirect composite for long-term provisionalization. J Clin Dent 2008; 19(1):37-41.
24. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009; 18(6):507-11.
25. Balkenhol M, Kohler H, Orbach K, Wostmann B. Fracture toughness of cross-linked and non-cross-linked temporary crown and fixed partial denture materials. Dent Mater 2009; 25(7):917-28.
26. Knobloch L.A, Kerby R.E, Pulido T,Johnston W.M.Relative fracture toughness of bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent 2011; 106:118-125).
27. Jo LJ, Shenoy KK, Shetty S. Flexural strength and hardness of resins for interim fixed partial dentures. Indian J Dent Res. 2011; 22: 71-76.)
28. Sharma S.P, Jain A.R, Balasubramanian R, Alavandar S, Manoharan P.S. An in vitro evaluation of flexural strength of two provisional restorative materials light polymerised resin and autopolymerised resin.IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Science 2013; 6(5):5-10.
29. Poonacha V, Poonacha S, Salagundi B, Rupesh PL, Raghavan R. In vitro comparison of flexural strength and elastic modulus of three provisional crown materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013; 5: e212-e217.
30. Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Sharples S, Peregrina A. Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 21-28.
31. Yanikoğlu N, Bayindir F, Kürklü D, Beşir B. Flexural Strength of Temporary Restorative Materials
Stored in Different Solutions. Open J Stomatol. 2014; 4: 291-298.
32. Duymus ZY,Karaalioglu FO and Suleyman F.Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins both with and without reinforced fiber, Journal of Material Science & Nanotechnology.2014;2(1):1-4.
33. Karaokutan I, Sayin G, Kara O. In Vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 7:27-31.
34. Meharpour H, Farjood E. Giti R, Ghasrdashti A.B, Heidari H. Evaluation of the flexural strength of interim restorative materials in fixed prosthodontics. J Dent Shiraz Univ. Med Sci, 2016;17(3):201-206.
