Cargando…

A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study

AIM: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) resin using different types of reinforcement materials to determine the best among them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty samples were made (10...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupt, Parikshit, Nagpal, Archana, Samra, Rupandeep Kaur, Verma, Ramit, Kaur, Jasjeet, Abrol, Surbhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5601501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28936046
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_79_17
_version_ 1783264398063697920
author Gupt, Parikshit
Nagpal, Archana
Samra, Rupandeep Kaur
Verma, Ramit
Kaur, Jasjeet
Abrol, Surbhi
author_facet Gupt, Parikshit
Nagpal, Archana
Samra, Rupandeep Kaur
Verma, Ramit
Kaur, Jasjeet
Abrol, Surbhi
author_sort Gupt, Parikshit
collection PubMed
description AIM: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) resin using different types of reinforcement materials to determine the best among them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty samples were made (10 samples for each group) with autopolymerizing PMMA resin using reinforcement materials (stainless steel wire: looped and unlooped and glass fiber: loose and unidirectional) as 3-unit posterior bridge. The test specimens were divided into five groups depending on the reinforcing material as Group I, II, III, IV, and V; Group I: PMMA unreinforced (control group), Group II: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (straight ends), Group III: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (looped ends), Group IV: PMMA reinforced with unidirectional glass fibers, and Group V: PMMA reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers. Universal testing machine was used to evaluate and compare the fracture strength of samples. Comparison of mean ultimate force and ultimate stress was done employing one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests. RESULTS: The highest and lowest mean ultimate force and mean ultimate stress were of Group IV and I, respectively. Tukey's post hoc honestly significant difference multiple comparison for mean ultimate force and stress shows the increase in strength to be statistically significant (P < 0.05) except for the samples reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unidirectional glass fibers showed the maximum strength, which was comparable to mean values of both stainless steel wire groups. Low cost and easy technique of using stainless steel wire make it the material of choice over the unidirectional glass fiber for reinforcement in nonesthetic areas where high strength is required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5601501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56015012018-07-01 A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study Gupt, Parikshit Nagpal, Archana Samra, Rupandeep Kaur Verma, Ramit Kaur, Jasjeet Abrol, Surbhi J Indian Prosthodont Soc Original Article AIM: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) resin using different types of reinforcement materials to determine the best among them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty samples were made (10 samples for each group) with autopolymerizing PMMA resin using reinforcement materials (stainless steel wire: looped and unlooped and glass fiber: loose and unidirectional) as 3-unit posterior bridge. The test specimens were divided into five groups depending on the reinforcing material as Group I, II, III, IV, and V; Group I: PMMA unreinforced (control group), Group II: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (straight ends), Group III: PMMA reinforced with stainless steel wire (looped ends), Group IV: PMMA reinforced with unidirectional glass fibers, and Group V: PMMA reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers. Universal testing machine was used to evaluate and compare the fracture strength of samples. Comparison of mean ultimate force and ultimate stress was done employing one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests. RESULTS: The highest and lowest mean ultimate force and mean ultimate stress were of Group IV and I, respectively. Tukey's post hoc honestly significant difference multiple comparison for mean ultimate force and stress shows the increase in strength to be statistically significant (P < 0.05) except for the samples reinforced with randomly distributed glass fibers (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unidirectional glass fibers showed the maximum strength, which was comparable to mean values of both stainless steel wire groups. Low cost and easy technique of using stainless steel wire make it the material of choice over the unidirectional glass fiber for reinforcement in nonesthetic areas where high strength is required. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5601501/ /pubmed/28936046 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_79_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gupt, Parikshit
Nagpal, Archana
Samra, Rupandeep Kaur
Verma, Ramit
Kaur, Jasjeet
Abrol, Surbhi
A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title_full A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title_fullStr A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title_short A comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: An in vitro study
title_sort comparative study to check fracture strength of provisional fixed partial dentures made of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin reinforced with different materials: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5601501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28936046
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_79_17
work_keys_str_mv AT guptparikshit acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT nagpalarchana acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT samrarupandeepkaur acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT vermaramit acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT kaurjasjeet acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT abrolsurbhi acomparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT guptparikshit comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT nagpalarchana comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT samrarupandeepkaur comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT vermaramit comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT kaurjasjeet comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy
AT abrolsurbhi comparativestudytocheckfracturestrengthofprovisionalfixedpartialdenturesmadeofautopolymerizingpolymethylmethacrylateresinreinforcedwithdifferentmaterialsaninvitrostudy