TO COMPARE AND EVALUATE THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF PROVISIONAL RESTORATIVE MATERIALS WITH AND WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT OF KEVLAR FIBRES - AN INVITRO STUDY

  • Post Graduate, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
  • Prof & Hod, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
  • Prof & Chair, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
  • Professor, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
  • Reader, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
  • Senior Lecturer, Co.Org. Institute of Dental Science, Karnataka, India.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Objective: To compare and evaluate the fracture toughness and flexural strength of PMMA and bisacryl composite provisional restorative materials with and without reinforcement of Kevlar fibre. Methodology: 40 test specimens of PMMA and bisacryl composite for fracture toughness testing and 40 rectangular specimens of PMMA and bisacryl composite for flexural strength testing were fabricated respectively. Each main group was again divided into 2 sub groups A & B; where A is control group and B is the test group with Kevlar fibre reinforcement. The fibre reinforced specimens were prepared by precutting the fibres into 12mm and 23mm length and wetted using the polymer monomer mix for the PMMA and a bonding agent for the bis-acryl resin and then placed in the mold cavity. In both tests, unreinforced resins were used as control group. Specimens were stored in water at 37˚C for 24 hours before testing. The specimens were loaded in universal testing machine. The mean fracture toughness and mean flexural strength were compared by one way analysis of variance followed by the Tukeys standardized range test. Results: The mean fracture toughness and flexural strength values obtained were significantly higher for bisacryl composite when compared to PMMA. Similarly after Kevlar reinforcement bisacryl composite proved to be better.

  1. Kamble VD, Parkhedkar RD, Mowade TK. The effect of different fiber reinforcements on flexural strength of provisional restorative resins: an in-vitro study. J AdvProsthodont. 2012 Feb; 4(1):1-6.
  2. Singh A, Garg S. Comparative evaluation of flexural strength of provisional crown and bridge materials- An Invitro Study. J ClinDiagn Res. 2016 Aug; 10(8):ZC72-7.
  3. Natarajan P, Thulasingam C. The effect of glass and polyethylene fiber reinforcement on flexural strength of provisional restorative resins: an in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013 Dec; 13(4):421-7.
  4. Hamza TA, Rosenstiel SF, Elhosary M M, Ibraheem RM. The effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture toughness and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Mar; 91(3):258-64.
  5. Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics,. J Prosthodont. 2009 Aug; 18(6):507-11.
  6. Geerts GAVM, Overturf JH, Oberholzer TG, The effect of different reinforcements on the fracture toughness of materials for interim restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Jun;99(6):461-7
  7. Gegauff AG, Pryor HG. Fracture toughness of provisional resins for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Jul;58(1):23-9.
  8. American society for testing and materials, standard test method for plane-strain fracture toughness of metallic materials [ASTM E 399-83].
  9. Tacir IH, Kama JD, Zortuk M, Eskimez S. Flexural properties of glass fibre reinforced acrylic resin polymers. Aust Dent J. 2006 Mar; 51(1):52-6.
  10. Alla RK, Sajjan S, Alluri VR, Ginjupalli K, Upadhya N. Influence of fiberreinforcement on the properties of denture base resins. Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology, 2013, 4, 91-97.
  11. Haselton, D. R, Diaz-Arnold A. M, Vargas, M. A. Flexural strength of provisional crown and fixed partial denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 2002. Feb;87(2):225-8.
  12. Yu SH et al. Comparison of denture base resin reinforced with polyaromatic polyamide fibers of different orientations. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(2):332-40.
  13. Fahmy N. Z, Sharawi A. Effect of two methods of reinforcement on the fracture strength of interim fixed partial dentures. J Prosthodont. 2009 Aug;18(6):512-20.
  14. Samadzadeh A, Kugel G, Hurley E, Aboushala A. Fracture strengths of provisional restorations reinforced with plasma-treated woven polyethylene fiber. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Nov;78(5):447-50.
  15. Sharma SP, Jain AR, R B, Alavandar S, Manoharan PS. An In Vitro Evaluation of Flexural Strength of Two Provisional Restorative Materials Light Polymerised Resin AndAutopolymerised Resin. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2013;6 (5):05-10.
  16. Viswambaran M, Kapri A, D?Souza DSJ, Kumar M. An evaluation of fracture resistance of interim fixed partial denture fabricated using polymethylmethacrylate and reinforced by different fibres for its optimal placement: An in vitro study. Med J Armed Forces India. 2011 Oct;67(4):343-7.
  17. Uzun G, Hersek N, Tin?er T. Effect of five woven fiber reinforcements on the impact and transverse strength of a denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 May;81(5):616-20.
  18. Ireland M F, 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 Aug;80(2):158-62.
  19. Vallittu PK. The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of a provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Feb;79(2):125-30.
  20. Koumjian JH, Nimmo A. Evaluation of fracture resistance of resins used for provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Dec;64(6):654-7.
  21. Kadiyala KK et al. Evaluation of flexural strength of thermocycled interim resin materials used in prosthetic rehabilitation- An in-vitro study. J ClinDiagn Res. 2016 Sep;10(9):ZC91-ZC95.
  22. Osman YI, Owen CP. Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Jul;70(1):94-6.
  23. Vallittu PK, Lassila VP. Reinforcement of acrylic resin denture base material with metal or fibre strengtheners. J Oral Rehabil. 1992 May;19(3):225-30.
  24. Dixon DL, Fincher M, Breeding LC, Mueninghoff LA. Mechanical properties of a light-polymerizing provisional restorative material with and without reinforcement fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Jun;73(6):510-4.
  25. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Pulido T, Johnston WM. Relative fracture toughness of bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Aug;106(2):118-25.

[Anusree Gopinath, Basavaraj S. Salagundi, Rupesh P.L, Arundati N. Raj, Mallikarjuna D.M. and Junu Henry (2020); TO COMPARE AND EVALUATE THE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF PROVISIONAL RESTORATIVE MATERIALS WITH AND WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT OF KEVLAR FIBRES - AN INVITRO STUDY Int. J. of Adv. Res. 8 (Feb). 1136-1149] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

ANUSREE GOPINATH
POST GRADUATE, COORG INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE, KARNATAKA, INDIA

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10559      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10559

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 60 | No. of Views: 172