Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 2500  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1007-1010  

The effect of joint surface preparations and chemical surface treatment on the transverse strength of repaired denture base resin


1 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Government Dental College, Silchar, Assam, India
4 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Centre, Anjora, Chhattisgarh, India
5 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Peoples Dental College Academy, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Date of Submission22-Mar-2020
Date of Decision24-Jun-2021
Date of Acceptance16-Apr-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Madhu Ranjan
Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_217_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Aim: The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of joint surface preparations and chemical surface treatment given to prepared surface on the transverse strength of repaired denture base resin. Methodology: Two hundred and twenty specimens (DPI India) were randomly allocated into eight groups (n = 10), according to the combination of joint surface preparation (Butt joint, 45° bevel, and rounded joint) and chemical surface treatment (methylene chloride, ethyl acetate, and methyl methacrylate) for 30 and 60 s each. Specimens, after surface treatment, were repaired with self-cured resin (DPI India) and then subjected to 3-point bending test to measure transverse strength. Fractured surfaces were viewed under stereomicroscope and subjected to AutoCAD analysis to determine type of failure (adhesive or cohesive) and measure their area. Measurement data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, paired t-test, Dunnett's D test, and multiple comparison Bonferroni t-test, with a 5% significance level. Results: Most of the comparisons between the test specimens were statistically significant. Specimens (methylene chloride for 60 s and rounded joint) show 60%–70% gain of strength. Conclusions: For providing better bond strength to a repaired specimen, the segment of fractured specimens to be provided “Rounded joint” preparation with etching by methylene chloride for 60 s.

Keywords: Chemical surface treatments, denture fracture, joint surface design


How to cite this article:
Ranjan M, Chatterjee U, Singh R, Sharma S, Mahajan H, Anand R. The effect of joint surface preparations and chemical surface treatment on the transverse strength of repaired denture base resin. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:1007-10

How to cite this URL:
Ranjan M, Chatterjee U, Singh R, Sharma S, Mahajan H, Anand R. The effect of joint surface preparations and chemical surface treatment on the transverse strength of repaired denture base resin. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 26];13, Suppl S2:1007-10. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1007/330014




   Introduction Top


The loss of teeth is a matter of great concern, and their replacement by dentures is most wanting fact from psychological, social, and functional point of view. The material most commonly employed in the construction of dentures is the polymethyl methacrylate.[1] Several materials and techniques have been used for repair of the prosthesis. The success of repair relies upon the phenomenon of adhesion between the already cured resin and repair material.[2]

This study was aimed to investigate the effect of three more commonly employed joint surface preparations along with the surface treatment given to prepared surface by three chemicals and also the evaluation of the areas of adhesive/cohesive failure. The objectives were:

  1. To study the effect of changing of design of prepared surfaces of fractured segments on the transverse strength of repaired acrylic denture resin (control group)
  2. To study the effect of surface treatments given to prepared surfaces of fractured segments by 3 chemicals, namely ethyl acetate, methylene chloride, and methyl methacrylate on the transverse strength of repaired acrylic denture resin and its comparative evaluation in relation to the time of exposure
  3. To evaluate the type of failures, namely adhesive, cohesive, and combination after fracture of the repaired specimens and deciding the percentage of adhesive/cohesive failure in repaired specimen using AutoCAD software.



   Methodology Top


Two hundred and twenty specimens were prepared from heat-cured denture base resin (DPI India) of dimension, length = 65 mm, width = 20 mm, and height = 2.5 mm according to the ANSI/ADA specification no. 12.[3] A “Center line” was marked on the specimen. The samples were then cut 1 mm on either side of center using mechanical saw. The joint surface was provided the shape as (Butt joint, 45° bevel joint, and rounded joint). A “Repair index” was prepared using dental stone in which repair specimen will fit snugly. The sample and index were numbered on both the ends to allow realignment in the same position. Grouping of the specimens was done as under [Table 1]:
Table 1: Grouping of the materials

Click here to view


Using “Sprinkle on” technique, the addition of autopolymerizing repair resin (DPI India) was done in the gap until the joint space was slightly overfilled to compensate polymerization shrinkage. After finishing and polishing, the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h before subjecting to 3-point bending test for the evaluation of transverse strength using compression testing machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Transverse strength (S) was then calculated using formula – S = 3PL/2bd2, where P = Breaking load, L = Distance between support, b = Width of specimen, and d = Thickness of specimen.

Assessment of type of failure by stereomicroscopic study

The fractured surfaces were then viewed under the stereomicroscope using ×8 magnification to evaluate and determine the nature of failure, i.e., adhesive and/or cohesive type or combination failure.

Computation of area of heat-cured and self-cured acrylic resin using AutoCAD photograph

  1. All specimen groups were photographed for evaluation using “AutoCAD software”
  2. Based on this, the “Percentage evaluation” of adhesive and/cohesive failure was determined for specimens of all groups [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]a and [Figure 3]b.
Figure 1: (a) Stereomicroscopic picture showing cohesive failure. (b) AutoCAD photograph showing adhesive failure

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Stereomicroscopic picture showing adhesive failure. (b) AutoCAD photograph showing cohesive failure

Click here to view
Figure 3: (a) Stereomicroscopic picture showing combination failure. (b) AutoCAD photograph showing combination failure

Click here to view



   Statistical analysis and Results Top


Measurement data were analyzed by one way ANOVA, Paired t- test, Dunnet D test and multiple comparison Bonferroni t- test, with a 5%significance level.

Most of the comparisons between the test specimens were statistically significant. Specimens (Methylene chloride for 60 sec and rounded joint) show 60-70% gain of strength.

Shows that transverse strength of all the test groups were much less than the strength of intact specimen. Lowest for no chemical treatment and butt joint increasing progressively to methylene chloride and highest with rounded joint and methylene chloride 60 sec treatment specimens. All the comparisons were statistically significant.


   Discussion Top


Since the early 1940s, “Polymethyl methacrylate,” introduction, it has became the most[4] commonly used denture base material because of its many desirable properties. As reported 1 by Smith, one of the most common drawbacks of denture base resin is its tendency to fracture. To deal with the problem of fracture, the temporary or definitive repair most commonly using autopolymerizing resin is the immediate measure to be undertaken.[5],[6] Specimen repaired with autopolymerizing resin has approximately 60% to 65% of the original strength of the denture, while the strength of heat polymerized acrylic resin repairs range from 75% to 80% of the original bulk material.[5],[7],[8] To overcome the problems of strength of a repaired specimen, various measures have been advocated.[9],[14]

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of providing surface treatments by methylene chloride, ethyl acetate, and methyl methacrylate with immersion time of 30 and 60 s and with three types of joint surface preparations on the transverse strength of the repaired specimens. The routine laboratory procedure was used to repair the specimens. After waiting for 48 h after repair, the specimens were subjected to “3-point bending test” using compression testing machine. The values so recorded were then compared with the values obtained from control group specimens and critically analyzed with intra and intergroup values for suggesting better chemical etchant, time of immersion, and joint preparation.

The result of this study is in agreement with the previous studies where plasma spray, chloroform, ethyl acetate, alcohol, methylene chloride, methyl methacrylate, and few more[15],[18] materials were used for surface treatment. The comparison between Groups 1 and 2 has underlined the fact that repaired specimens have just 1/3rd strength [Table 2] as compared to intact specimens. In Group 2, the repair specimen with rounded joint surface preparation proved to be superior over other two joint preparations. Out of the three chemical etchants used in the study, the methylene chloride has exhibited excellent results over ethyl acetate and methyl methacrylate. The values of transverse strength with chemical treatment group are almost one and half time more as compared with no treatment group [Graph 1].
Table 2: Mean values of transverse strength of specimens (MPa)

Click here to view



The values of transverse strength of the specimen repaired after chemical treatment for 30 s have shown superior results with all three chemicals and all types of joint preparation, but the results with the repaired specimens after chemical etching for 60 s are far superior with specimens of all groups, and the values are nearly double. In order of values, the rounded joint preparations have established its superiority over Butt joint and 45° bevel joint preparation. The fact that the rounded joint was superior to other supports the general principle that sharp angled surfaces promote stress concentrations and that the amount of stress concentration is directly related to the degree and abruptness of surface change.

Time interval for chemical etching for 60 s produced better results over 30 s immersion. It is due to more time provided for dissolution of polymer hence better bonding. The chemical etching by methylene chloride with rounded joint preparation is proved to be better combination over other.

AutoCAD software was used in this study to evaluate the percentage failure. Rounded joint preparation with methylene chloride chemical etching for 60 s demonstrated “No adhesive failure” in any specimen indicative of the perfect union between heat-cured resin with the repair resin. The cohesive failure noticed in 12 specimens out of 30 and combination failure noticed in 18 samples out of 30. With 45° bevel joint also shown “No adhesive failure,” but the combination failure was more (21/30) as compared to cohesive failure (9/30).

Among the joint preparations, Butt joint demonstrated all types of failures. It is worthy to note that Butt joint demonstrated adhesive failure in all 10 specimens of no chemical treatment group, hence the Butt joint proved to be weak the weakest of all joint preparation in providing adequate strength to repaired specimen [Table 3].
Table 3: Type of failure and percentage evaluation of adhesive failure in mixed type using auto computer-aided design software

Click here to view



   Summary and Conclusions Top


  1. Chemical treatment given to prepared fracture surfaces of segments provide better strength to repaired specimens
  2. Surface treatment by methylene chloride with rounded joint has established its significance over the ethyl acetate and methyl methacrylate treatment
  3. Chemical treatment for 60 s yielded better values as compared to 30 s etching in all groups
  4. More adhesive failure noticed in all groups with Butt joint preparation; hence “Butt joint” to be avoided while preparing the fractured segments. 45° Bevel joint preparation ranked 2nd best in order
  5. AutoCAD software was used successfully to count percentage failure in combination (mixed) failure in repaired specimens
  6. For providing better bond strength to a repaired specimen, the segment of fractured specimens to be provided “Rounded joint” preparation with etching by methylene chloride for 60 s.


Further exploration as regards to the effectiveness of other chemicals and utilization of AutoCAD software is required.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Smith DC. The acrylic denture – Mechanical evaluation mid-line fracture. Br Dent J 1961;110:257-67.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Shen C, Colaizzi FA, Birns B. Strength of denture repairs as influenced by surface treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:844-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Revised American Dental Association specification no. 12 for denture base polymers. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;90:451-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Schreiber CK. Polymethyl methacrylate reinforced with carbon fibers. Br Dent J 1971;130:29-30.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Beyli MS, von Fraunhofer JA. An analysis of causes of fracture of acrylic resin dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:238-41.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Shimizu H, Ikuyama T, Hayakawa E, Tsue F, Takahashi Y. Effect of surface preparation using ethyl acetate on the repair strength of denture base resin. Acta Odontol Scand 2006;64:159-63.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Berge M. Bending strength of intact and repaired denture base resins. Acta Odontol Scand 1983;41:187-91.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ellakwa AE, El-Sheikh AM. Effect of chemical disinfectants and repair materials on the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized acrylic resin. J Prosthodont 2006;15:300-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Dar-Odeh NS, Harrison A, Abu-Hammad O. An evaluation of self-cured and visible light-cured denture base materials when used as a denture base repair material. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:755-60.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bailey LR. Denture repairs. In: Winkler S, editor. Essentials of Complete Denture Prosthodontics. 2nd ed. India: A.I.T.B.S. Publishers; 2000. p. 352-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Vallittu PK. A review of methods used to reinforce polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Prosthodont 1995;4:183-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Marei MK. Reinforcement of denture base resin with glass fillers. J Prosthodont 1999;8:18-26.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ward JE, Moon PC, Levine RA, Behrendt CL. Effect of repair surface design, repair material, and processing method on the transverse strength of repaired acrylic denture resin. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:815-20.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Darbar UR, Huggett R, Harrison A. Denture fracture – A survey. Br Dent J 1994;176:342-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen Niom R. The effect of notch shape and self-cured acrylic resin repair on the fatigue resistance of an acrylic resin denture base. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:108-13.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Vallittu PK. The effect of surface treatment of denture acrylic resin on the residual monomer content and its release into water. Acta Odontol Scand 1996;54:188-92.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ramos V Jr., Runyan DA, Christensen LC. The effect of plasma-treated polyethylene fiber on the fracture strength of polymethyl methacrylate. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:94-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ewoldsen NO, Sheridan PJ, Koka S. Microwave pressure chamber processing of a denture repair polymer. J Prosthodont 1997;6:221-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
    Statistical anal...
   Discussion
    Summary and Conc...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed334    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal