Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Impact and Flexural Strength of Four Commercially Available Flexible Denture Base Materials: An In Vitro Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Abstract

Poly-methyl methacrylate is a rigid material. It is generally observed that the impact and flexural strength of this material is not satisfactory and that is reflected in the continuous efforts to improve these mechanical properties. Hence there was a serious need to make another material which could overcome the limitations of the existing materials and could have better properties, like thermoplastic materials. The study was aimed to evaluate and compare the impact strength and the flexural strength of four different flexible denture base materials (thermoplastic denture base resins) with the conventional denture base material (high impact polymethyl-methacrylate). Two, machine made master moulds of metal blocks according to the size of sample holder of the equipment were prepared to test the impact and flexural strength. Total 40 samples, 10 for each group of flexible denture base materials namely: De-flex (Deflex, United Kingdom), Lucitone FRS (Densply, Germany), Valplast (Novoblast, USA), and Bre-flex (Bredent, Germany) in specially designed flask by injection molded process. For different flexible materials, the time, temperature and pressure for injecting the materials were followed as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Total 20 samples for control (Trevelon denture base materials) were prepared by compression moulded process, for each test. ANOVA test was applied to calculate p value. Unpaired t test was applied to calculate t-value. Tukey–Kramer multiple test was provided for comparison between the groups for flexural and impact strength. From the statistical analysis, it was found that, the impact strength of Group III (Valplast) was found to be the highest than all other groups and nearer to the control group. Whereas Group IV (Bre-flex) had the maximum flexural strength. The flexural strength of Group I (De-flex) was lowest than all other groups and nearer to control group. The values were found to be statistically significant but clinically non-significant with the control (p < 0.001). The overall results of the study showed that, Group III (Valplast) had the maximum impact strength and Group I (De-flex) had the lowest flexural strength, whereas Group IV (Bre-flex) had the maximum flexural strength and lowest impact strength.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Graph 1
Graph 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meng Thomas R et al (2005) Physical properties of four acrylic denture base resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 6(4):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  2. Negrutiu Meda et al (2005) Thermoplastic resins for flexible framework removable partial dentures. TMJ 55:3

    Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips′ Science of Dental materials. 11th edn. 143–170

  4. Craig′s restorative Dental materials. 12th edn. 21–37

  5. Ali parvizi et al. (2004) Comparison of the dimensional accuracy of injection moulded denture base materials to that of conventional pressure-pack acrylic resin. J Prosthodont 13:83–89

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson GC et al (1988) Dimensional stability of injection and conventional processing of denture baseacrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 60:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kausch HH (1987) Polymer fracture. 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

  8. Yee A (1987) Impact resistance. In: Mark HF (ed) Encyclopedia of polymer science and technology. Vol 8. 2nd edn. Wiley, New York p 36–68

  9. Memon MS et al (2001) Some mechanical properties of highly cross linked, microwave-polymerized, injection moulded denture base polymer. Int J Prosthodont 14:214–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karacaer O et al (2003) The effect of length and concentration of glass fibers on the mechanical properties of an injection and compression moulded denture base polymer. J Prosthet Dent 90:385–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lowe LG (2004) Flexible denture flanges for patients exhibiting undercut tuberosities and reduced width of the buccal vestibule: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 92:128–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meijer GJ (2007) Provisional flexible denture to assist in undisturbed healing of the reconstructed maxilla. J Prosthet Dent 98:327–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dhiman CRK (2009) Midline fractures in single maxillary complete acrylic verses flexible dentures. MJAFI 65:141–145

    Google Scholar 

  14. Takabayashi Y (2010) Characteristics of denture thermoplastic resins for non-metal clasp dentures. Dent Mater J 29(4):353–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruyter E et al (1980) Flexural properties of denture base polymers. J Prosthet Dent 43:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston EP et al (1981) Flexure fatigue of ten commonly used denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 46:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deboer J et al (1984) The effect of carbon fiber orientation on the fatigue resistance and bending properties of two denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 51:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Donovan TE (1985) Physical properties of acrylic resins polymerized by four different techniques. J Prosthet Dent 54:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Success injection systemand Lucitone FRS flexible dental resin. (Technique high light sheet : partial dentures):Article from internet

  20. Dixon DL (1992) The transverse strengths of three denture base resins reinforced polyethylene fibers. J Prosthet Dent 67:417–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Williamson DL et al (1994) Effect of polyethylene fiber reinforcement on the strength of denture base resins polymerized by microwave energy. J Prosthee Dent 72:635–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. John J et al (2001) Flexural strength of heat polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture reinforced with glass, aramid or nylon. J Prosthet Dent 86:424–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Silva FAP et al (2002) Effect of intrinsic pigmentation on the flexural strength of a microwave cured acrylic resins. Braz Dent J 13(3):205–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pfeiffer P et al (2005) Flexural strength and moduli of hypoallergenic denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 93:372–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Golbidi F et al (2007) An evaluation of the flexural strength properties of maliodent and acropars heat polymerized acrylic resins. J Dent 4(2):68–71

    Google Scholar 

  26. Diaz-Arnold AM et al (2008) Flexural and fatigue strengths of denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent 100:47–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Price CA (1986) The effect of cross linking agents on the impact resistance of a linear poly (methyl-methacrylate) denture-base polymer. J Dent Res 65(7):987–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ting-Way Y (1991) The effects of hollow microsphere fillers on density and impact strength of denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent 65:147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gianluca Z (2003) comparison of fracture test of denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 90:578–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sung-hunkim (2004) The effect of reinforcement with woven E-glass fibers on the impact strength of Complete denturesfabricated with high impact acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 91:274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Faot F (2006) Impact strength and fracture morphology of denture acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 96:367–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Faot F (2008) Fractographic analysis, accuracy of fit and impact strength of acrylic resins. Braz Oral Res 22(4):334–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gulay U (1999) Effect of five woven fiber reinforcement on the impact and transverse strength of denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 81:616–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kanie T (2000) Flexural properties and impact strength of denture base polymer reinforced with woven glass fibers. Dent Mater 16:150–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shamnur SN (2010) “Flexible dentures”—an alternate for rigid dentures? J Dent Sci Res 1:74–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, V.S.P.M.’s Dental College & Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna, Nagpur, India

    Pande Neelam Abhay & Shori Karishma

  2. Flat No.1, Plot No.123, “Rujuta” Apartments, Pande Lay-out, Khamla, Nagpur, 440025, Maharastra, India

    Pande Neelam Abhay

Authors
  1. Pande Neelam Abhay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shori Karishma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pande Neelam Abhay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abhay, P.N., Karishma, S. Comparative Evaluation of Impact and Flexural Strength of Four Commercially Available Flexible Denture Base Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13, 499–508 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0203-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0203-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation