Next Article in Journal
Eutectic Fatty Acids Phase Change Materials Improved with Expanded Graphite
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Effect of Carbonation Rate on the Concrete Water Reservoir Structures According to Applied Waterproofing/Anticorrosive Methods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/ma15196858
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Three Different Materials for Implant Supported Overdenture: An In-Vitro Study

by
Mona Gibreel
1,*,
Leila Perea-Lowery
1,
Lippo Lassila
1 and
Pekka K. Vallittu
1,2
1
Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre-TCBC, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland
2
City of Turku Welfare Division, Oral Health Care, Puolalankatu 5, 20101 Turku, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(19), 6858; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196858
Submission received: 25 August 2022 / Revised: 7 September 2022 / Accepted: 29 September 2022 / Published: 2 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Advanced Composites)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aim: the aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and elastic modulus of three-dimensionally (3D) printed, conventional heat-cured, and high-impact implant-supported overdenture materials specimens. Materials and Methods: Thirty implant-supported overdenture materials specimens (bar-shaped, 65.0 × 10.2 × 5.1 ± 0.2 mm3) with one central hole were fabricated using 3D-printed, heat-cured conventional, and high-impact denture base resins (n = 10/group). Autopolymerizing acrylic resin was used to attach titanium matrix housings to the central holes of the specimens. A three-point bending test was conducted using a universal testing machine and a model analog with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The indicative flexural strength and elastic modulus were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey tests at α = 0.05. Results: One-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of denture base material on the flexural strength (p < 0.001) but not on the elastic modulus (p = 0.451) of the evaluated materials. The flexural strength of the 3D-printed specimens (95.99 ± 9.87 MPa) was significantly higher than the conventional (77.18 ± 9.69 MPa; p < 0.001) and high-impact ones (82.74 ± 7.73 MPa; p = 0.002). Conclusions: The maximum flexural strength was observed in the 3D-printed implant-supported overdenture material specimens, which might indicate their suitability as an alternative to the conventionally fabricated ones. Flexural strength and elastic modulus of conventional and high-impact heat-cured implant-supported overdenture materials specimens were comparable.

1. Introduction

Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) has been widely used as a denture base material due to its ease of manipulation, pleasing cosmetic-esthetic outcomes, and affordable cost [1,2]. Denture base fractures due to fatigue of the material and impact forces are common, and some improvement to the material has taken place [3,4,5,6]. To enhance its mechanical properties, PMMA polymer has been modified by adding rubber compounds or acrylic-elastomer copolymers to the powder to produce high-impact acrylic resins [7,8]. These rubber compounds can absorb the crack energy and arrest or slow its propagation through the denture base [9,10,11].
PMMA denture bases can be fabricated conventionally by compression molding, which involves a series of multiple clinical and laboratory steps [12]. Recently, the processing of dental materials with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) based techniques, such as subtractive milling (SM) and additive manufacturing (AM), has enhanced their precision while reducing the time and technical sensitivity of the laboratory procedures [13,14,15]. In 1994, Maeda et al. [16] presented the first CAD-CAM complete removable dental prosthesis. Thanks to this technology, it is possible to fabricate complete dentures in just two clinical visits [17].
Implants can be utilized in completely edentulous patients to improve denture retention, masticatory efficiency, maximum bite force, and patient satisfaction while minimizing residual ridge resorption [18]. Solitary and bar-type attachments are available for dental implant overdentures [19]. Solitary attachments, such as balls, magnets, locators, and OT Equators, are easier to maintain and can be used in limited inter-arch spaces, while bars provide more stability to overdentures [20,21]. Usually, each attachment system has two components, one is embedded within the denture base while the other is screwed to the implant [22]. In long-term evaluations, implant overdentures demonstrated high implant and prosthetic survival rates, few complications, high patient satisfaction, and favorable biological parameters [23]. However, on the other hand, considering the higher occlusal force exerted by the implant support, which may surpass the yield stress of the material, overdenture fracture during functioning is prevalent in clinical practice [24,25,26,27]. The majority of fractures were noticed in the thinner denture base area surrounding the abutment [26,27]. While the flexural strength of 3D-printed denture base materials has been reported [28,29,30], information concerning the flexural strength of 3D-printed implant-supported overdentures is, to the authors’ knowledge, not available in the literature.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and elastic modulus of 3D-printed, conventional heat-cured, and high-impact implant-supported overdenture materials. The hypothesis was that implant-supported overdentures processed from different materials would display similar flexural strength and elastic modulus.

2. Materials and Methods

Three different commercially available denture base materials were evaluated in this study: a 3D-printing resin, a high-impact heat-cured acrylic resin, and a conventional heat-cured acrylic resin (Table 1).
Thirty specimens (65.0 × 10.2 × 5.1 ± 0.2 mm3; n = 10/material) mimicking overdentures with a central hole (10.0 × 6.0 × 3.5 mm3) were fabricated. The 3D-printed denture base specimens were designed using a CAD program software AutoCAD (Autodesk Inc.; San Francisco, CA, USA) and exported as a standard tessellation language (STL) file. A digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer (Asiga MAX™; Asiga, Sydney, Australia) was used to print the specimens with a layer thickness of 50 μm in a vertical orientation on the printing platform and identical supports were generated for all the specimens. The post-processing of the printed specimens was done according to the manufacturer’s guidelines by cleaning them in isopropanol (>98%) for two minutes inside an ultrasonic path (Form Wash; Formlabs, Berlin, Germany) to dissolve any unpolymerized resin and then rinsing in a clean alcohol solution for an additional three minutes. The specimens were allowed to dry in the air and then post-cured in a polymerization unit at 60 °C for 30 min (Form cure; Formlabs, Berlin, Germany). All supports were then removed. In order to fabricate the conventional and high-impact resin specimens, custom Teflon molds were made by using additional 3D-printed specimens as a template. The materials were mixed, packed into the molds, and finally polymerized according to the manufacturer’s instructions as described in Table 1. Successive polishing of the specimens was carried out with a rotary polishing device (LabPol-21; Struers, Ballerup, Denmark) using 800- and 1200-grit FEPA abrasive papers (Buehler, New York, NY, USA). In this study, Novaloc titanium matrix housings (Valoc, Möhlin, Switzerland) (5.5 mm in diameter and 2.3 mm in height) with white (light) retention inserts were used. Specimens’ holes were first coated with a monomer liquid, then filled with an autopolymerizing PMMA resin mixture (Palapress; Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany) before being slipped over the matrix housings to insert them into the specimen. After that, specimens were processed in distilled water at 55 °C and under air pressure of 300 kPa for 15 min in a pneumatic polymerizing unit (Ivomat IP3; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) to polymerize the pickup material (Figure 1). The specimens were stored in dark containers filled with distilled water at 37 °C for 30 days before testing.
Indicative flexural strength (FS) and elastic modulus (EM) of the specimens were determined by a 3-point bending test carried out using a universal testing machine (Lloyd model LRX; Lloyd Instruments, Bognor Regis, UK). The distance between the test supports was set at 50 mm, while the load was applied at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min using an analog [31] (Novaloc Model Analog; Valoc, Möhlin, Switzerland) for load application (Figure 2). The load-deflection curves were recorded using analysis software (Nexygen 4.0; Lloyd Instruments). FS and EM were automatically calculated by the machine software using Formulas (1) and (2) [30]:
FS (MPa) = 3FL/2bh2
EM (MPa) = F1L3/4bh3d
where F is the maximum load (N), L is the span length (mm), b is the specimen width (mm), h is the specimen thickness (mm), F1 is the load (N) at a point on in the straight-line segment of the load-deflection curve, and d is the recorded deflection (mm) at load F1.
Statistical software (SPSS V25; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze the data using one-way ANOVA. If statistically significant, resolution of the significance factor was achieved by pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s post hoc analysis (α = 0.05).

3. Results

All the manufactured specimens underwent the test and displayed a complete fracture. Figure 3 shows the mean values of flexural strength and elastic modulus. The one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the denture base material on the fractural strength (p < 0.001) but not on the elastic modulus (p = 0.451) (Table 2).
The flexural strength of the FREEPRINT denture (95.99 ± 9.87 MPa) was significantly higher than Paladon 65 (77.18 ± 9.69 MPa; p < 0.001) and Lucitone 199 (82.74 ± 7.73 MPa; p = 0.002). The flexural strength difference between Paladon 65 and Lucitone 199 denture base materials was not significant (p = 0.164). Figure 4 depicts the load-deflection curves of the tested materials, which highlighted the wider plastic deformation of the high-impact and the 3D-printed resins when compared to the conventional heat-cured PMMA. Paladon 65 and Lucitone 199 specimens displayed fracture in the middle above the attachment matrix, while FREEPRINT denture specimens displayed fracture in multiple sites in addition to the middle one (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

The study hypothesis was partially rejected, as implant-supported overdenture specimens processed from different materials displayed significant differences in terms of their flexural strength, while the modulus of elasticity was not significant.
Denture base fractures account for approximately 9.3% to 21.4% of complications in implant-supported overdentures [32]. Fractures are more frequent in the area around the implants or abutments due to stress accumulation and denture base deformation in this thinner area [24,33]. Flexural strength is a key property that provides information about the ability of a denture base material to withstand functional masticatory loads, as it replicates the type of force applied to the denture during mastication [19,34].
Test specimens were stored in water for 30 days before testing to simulate the wet oral environment. Water storage is a time-dependent process that results in the leaching of soluble components such as unreacted polymers and plasticizers from denture base resins, causing micro-voids formation and inward water diffusion, which negatively affect the polymer strength [35].
The results of the study revealed that 3D-printed implant-supported overdentures had a significantly higher flexural strength than those made from conventional and high-impact heat-cured acrylic resin, while the increase in elastic modulus was not significant. Additive manufacturing is an automated process with a low human error rate and a standardized workflow that employs resins with different compositions [29]. Materials for DLP are usually based on a variety of methacrylate or acrylate monomers and oligomers. However, usually manufacturers keep specific components confidential since they belong to their proprietary information. While the flexural strength of 3D-printed implant-supported overdentures was not available in the literature, studies comparing the flexural strength between conventional and 3D-printed denture base materials revealed some variations in results. Some studies [15,27,28,36,37] concluded that 3D-printed denture base resins were inferior to conventional heat-cured ones in terms of their mechanical properties, while they were equivalent in other studies [29]. Interestingly, a 3D-printed denture base material from VOCO GmbH (V-Print dentbase) recorded a flexural strength of up to 171 MPa in a recent study by Li et al. [29], suggesting a continuous improvement in denture base resins used for additive manufacturing. Differences in material composition [38,39] and degree of double-bond conversion [40] across different resin brands have implications on the mechanical characteristics of resins used for 3D printing. Other variables such as printers, printing orientation, and post-curing techniques would also affect the mechanical properties of the 3D-printed objects [38,41,42,43].
The 3D-printed overdenture specimens investigated in this study showed greater plastic elongation followed by the high-impact, while the conventional heat-cured resin specimens exhibited only elastic elongation (Figure 4). The difference in elongation behavior could be related to the different manufacturing techniques used, whether the resin is deposited into a mold and entirely polymerized in one step or whether it is subjected to multiple polymerizations during the deposition of several resin layers [29]. While in high-impact specimens, it could be due to the material’s rubber content, which absorbs more energy and makes the material less brittle [11].
The type of material used to secure the attachment housing, as well as the bonding between the denture base and the pickup material, can affect the flexural strength of the overdenture [25,44]. In the current study, autopolymerizing resin was employed as the pickup material. The attachment space within the denture base was first etched with methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer. Chemical etching with the MMA monomer would substantially improve the bond strength between the denture base and the repair resin by dissolving conventional denture base materials, allowing the monomer to penetrate the surface and create an interwoven network [2,45]. In addition, a previous study [13] investigating the repairability of a 3D-printed denture base material, FREEPRINT denture, found that a cohesive failure mode prevailed in unaged specimens etched with the liquid monomer of Palapress. This finding was explained by the ability of MMA to dissolve the surface of the 3D-printed denture base material, penetrate the polymer network, and crosslink with the unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds of the denture base polymer [13].
The specimens used in this study deviated from standard denture configurations, and only one 3D-printed denture base material was investigated. Within these limitations, the results showed that the 3D-printing denture base material, FREEPRINT denture, outperformed the conventional and high-impact heat-cured PMMA resins, Paladon 65 and Lucitone 199, in terms of their flexural strength when used for implant-supported overdentures. Accordingly, making use of FREEPRINT denture might minimize the incidence of overdenture fracture. In addition, since the material is MMA-free, according to the manufacturer’s claims, it offers an alternative to PMMA denture base resins for patients with sensitivity or allergy to MMA. Finally, 3D-printed implant-supported overdenture materials can be considered as an appropriate candidate to substitute the heat-cured resins in terms of flexural strength and elastic modulus. However, more studies are needed to consider 3D-printed denture base materials as a viable alternative in all aspects of implant-supported overdenture materials. Also, the use of high-impact resin did not lead to a significant increase in the flexural strength of implant-supported overdentures, making it unnecessary given that it increases the cost of the prosthesis.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of this in vitro investigation, the following can be concluded:
  • 3D-printed implant-supported overdenture material specimens displayed the highest flexural strength while being significantly different from those made of conventional and high-impact heat-cured acrylic resin.
  • Conventional and high-impact heat-cured acrylic resin denture base materials displayed comparable flexural strength and elastic modulus when used for the fabrication of implant-supported overdenture specimens.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G., L.L., L.P.-L. and P.K.V.; methodology, M.G., L.L. and L.P.-L.; software, L.L.; validation, L.L., P.K.V. and L.P.-L.; formal analysis, M.G. and L.L.; investigation, M.G. and L.P.-L.; resources, M.G., L.P.-L., L.L. and P.K.V.; data curation, M.G. and L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G. and L.P.-L.; writing—review and editing, M.G., L.P.-L., L.L. and P.K.V.; visualization, M.G. and L.P.-L.; supervision, P.K.V. and L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out with the support of the Biocity Turku Biomaterials Research Program (www.biomaterials.utu.fi, accessed on 25 August 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gungor, H.; Gundogdu, M.; Yesil Duymus, Z. Investigation of the effect of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of denture base and repair materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 112, 1271–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, V.P.; Lappalainen, R. Wetting the repair surface with methyl methacrylate affects the transverse strength of repaired heat-polymerized resin. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1994, 72, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, V.P.; Lappalainen, R. Evaluation of damage to removable dentures in two cities in Finland. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1993, 51, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vallittu, P.K.; Alakuijala, P.; Lassila, V.P.; Lappalainen, R. In vitro fatigue fracture of an acrylic resin-based partial denture: An exploratory study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1994, 72, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, V.P.; 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, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vallittu, P.K.; Narva, K. Impact strength of a modified continuous glass fiber—Poly(methyl methacrylate). Int. J. Prosthodont. 1997, 10, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Meng, T.R.; Latta, M.A. Physical properties of four acrylic denture base resins. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2005, 6, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Abdulwahhab, S.S. High-impact strength acrylic denture base material processed by autoclave. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2013, 57, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Uzun, G.; Hersek, N. Comparison of the fracture resistance of six denture base acrylic resins. J. Biomater. Appl. 2002, 17, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gad, M.M.; Fouda, S.M.; Al-Harbi, F.A.; Näpänkangas, R.; Raustia, A. PMMA denture base material enhancement: A review of fiber, filler, and nanofiller addition. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 3801–3812. Available online: https://www.dovepress.com/pmma-denture-base-material-enhancement-a-review-of-fiber-filler-and-na-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJN (accessed on 25 August 2022). [CrossRef]
  11. Sharan, S.; Kavitha, H.R.; Konde, H.; Kalahasti, D. Effect of chemical disinfectant on the transverse strength of heat-polymerized acrylic resins subjected to mechanical and chemical polishing: An in vitro study. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2012, 13, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Naji, G.A.-H. Influence of Various Chemical Surface Treatments, Repair Materials, and Techniques on Transverse Strength of Thermoplastic Nylon Denture Base. Int. J. Dent. 2020, 2020, 8432143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Li, P.; Krämer-Fernandez, P.; Klink, A.; Xu, Y.; Spintzyk, S. Repairability of a 3D printed denture base polymer: Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 114, 104227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Infante, L.; Yilmaz, B.; McGlumphy, E.; Finger, I. Fabricating complete dentures with CAD/CAM technology. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014, 111, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prpić, V.; Schauperl, Z.; Ćatić, A.; Dulčić, N.; Čimić, S. Comparison of Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed, CAD/CAM, and Conventional Denture Base Materials. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 29, 524–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maeda, Y.; Minoura, M.; Tsutsumi, S.; Okada, M.; Nokubi, T. A CAD/CAM system for removable denture. Part I: Fabrication of complete dentures. Int. J. Prosthodont. 1994, 7, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  17. Srinivasan, M.; Kalberer, N.; Maniewicz, S.; Müller, F. Implant overdentures retained by self-aligning stud-type attachments: A clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 123, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Feine, J.S.; Carlsson, G.E.; Awad, M.A.; Chehade, A.; Duncan, W.J.; Gizani, S.; Head, T.; Lund, J.P.; MacEntee, M.; Mericske-Stern, R.; et al. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 24–25, 2002. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2002, 15, 413–414. [Google Scholar]
  19. Seo, R.S.; Murata, H.; Hong, G.; Vergani, C.E.; Hamada, T. Influence of thermal and mechanical stresses on the strength of intact and relined denture bases. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2006, 96, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tallarico, M.; Cervino, G.; Montanari, M.; Scrascia, R.; Ferrari, E.; Casucci, A.; Xhanari, E.; Lupi, S.M.; Meloni, S.; Ceruso, F.M.; et al. OT-Equator® Attachments Comparison for Retaining an Early Loaded Implant Overdenture on Two or Three Implants: 1 Year RCT Preliminary Data. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Montanari, M.; Scrascia, R.; Cervino, G.; Pasi, M.; Ferrari, E.; Xhanari, E.; Koshovari, A.; Tallarico, M. A One-Year, Multicenter, Retrospective Evaluation of Narrow and Low-Profile Abutments Used to Rehabilitate Complete Edentulous Lower Arches: The OT Bridge Concept. Prosthesis 2020, 2, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, e1–e105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tallarico, M.; Ortensi, L.; Martinolli, M.; Casucci, A.; Ferrari, E.; Malaguti, G.; Montanari, M.; Scrascia, R.; Vaccaro, G.; Venezia, P.; et al. Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Implant Overdentures Delivered with Different Design and Attachment Systems: Results Between One and 17 Years of Follow-Up. Dent. J. 2018, 6, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gonda, T.; Maeda, Y.; Walton, J.N.; MacEntee, M.I. Fracture incidence in mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2010, 103, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ozkir, S.E.; Yilmaz, B. Effect of different housing retaining materials on the flexural strength of an acrylic resin overdenture base. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 118, 500–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nedir, R.; Bischof, M.; Szmukler-Moncler, S.; Belser, U.C.; Samson, J. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: From an up-to-8-year experience in private practice. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant 2006, 21, 919–928. [Google Scholar]
  27. Chhabra, A.; Chhabra, N.; Jain, A.; Kabi, D. Overdenture Prostheses with Metal Copings: A Retrospective Analysis of Survival and Prosthodontic Complications. J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Perea-Lowery, L.; Gibreel, M.; Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, L.V. 3D-Printed vs. Heat-Polymerizing and Autopolymerizing Denture Base Acrylic Resins. Mater. Basel Switz. 2021, 14, 5781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fiore, A.D.; Meneghello, R.; Brun, P.; Rosso, S.; Gattazzo, A.; Stellini, E.; Yilmaz, B. Comparison of the flexural and surface properties of milled, 3D-printed, and heat polymerized PMMA resins for denture bases: An in vitro study. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2022, 66, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Al-Dwairi, Z.N.; Al Haj Ebrahim, A.A.; Baba, N.Z. A Comparison of the Surface and Mechanical Properties of 3D Printable Denture-Base Resin Material and Conventional Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gibreel, M.; Lassila, L.V.J.; Närhi, T.O.; Perea-Lowery, L.; Vallittu, P.K. Load-bearing capacity of simulated Locator-retained overdenture system. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. El Aziz, M.; El Megid Tella, E. Fully digital workflow for reinforced mandibular implant overdenture—A novel method. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2022, 22, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. ELsyad, M.A.; Fathe Mahanna, F.; Samir Khirallah, A.; Ali Habib, A. Clinical denture base deformation with different attachments used to stabilize implant overdentures: A crossover study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2020, 31, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Machado, A.L.; Puckett, A.D.; Breeding, L.C.; Wady, A.F.; Vergani, C.E. Effect of thermocycling on the flexural and impact strength of urethane-based and high-impact denture base resins. Gerodontology 2012, 29, e318–e323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Yoshida, K.; Takahashi, Y.; Sasaki, H.; Hamanaka, I.; Kawaguchi, T. Flexural strengths of reinforced denture base resins subjected to long-term water immersion. Acta Biomater. Odontol. Scand. 2016, 2, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Dwairi, Z.N.; Tahboub, K.Y.; Baba, N.Z.; Goodacre, C.J.; Özcan, M. A Comparison of the Surface Properties of CAD/CAM and Conventional Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Gad, M.M.; Fouda, S.M.; Abualsaud, R.; Alshahrani, F.A.; Al-Thobity, A.M.; Khan, S.Q.; Akhtar, S.; Msc, I.S.A.; Helal, M.A.; Al-Harbi, F.A.; et al. Strength and Surface Properties of a 3D-Printed Denture Base Polymer. J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2022, 31, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shim, J.S.; Kim, J.-E.; Jeong, S.H.; Choi, Y.J.; Ryu, J.J. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 468–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, J.; Belles, D.; Gonzalez, M.; Kiat-Amnuay, S.; Dugarte, A.; Ontiveros, J. Impact strength of 3D printed and conventional heat-cured and cold-cured denture base acrylics. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2022, 35, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sideridou, I.; Tserki, V.; Papanastasiou, G. Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 2002, 23, 1819–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, P.; Lambart, A.-L.; Stawarczyk, B.; Reymus, M.; Spintzyk, S. Postpolymerization of a 3D-printed denture base polymer: Impact of post-curing methods on surface characteristics, flexural strength, and cytotoxicity. J. Dent. 2021, 115, 103856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Goodacre, B.J.; Goodacre, C.J. Additive Manufacturing for Complete Denture Fabrication: A Narrative Review. J. Prosthodont. Off. J. Am. Coll. Prosthodont. 2022, 31, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Suominen, J.M.; Frankberg, E.J.; Vallittu, P.K.; Levänen, E.; Vihinen, J.; Vastamäki, T.; Kari, R.; Lassila, L.V.J. Three-dimensional printing of zirconia: Characterization of early stage material properties. Biomater. Investig. Dent. 2019, 6, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Domingo, K.B.; Burgess, J.O.; Litaker, M.S.; McCracken, M.S. Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 110, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sarac, Y.S.; Sarac, D.; Kulunk, T.; Kulunk, S. The effect of chemical surface treatments of different denture base resins on the shear bond strength of denture repair. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2005, 94, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 06858 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic of test specimen longitudinal cross section with pickup material and attachment housing.
Figure 1. Schematic of test specimen longitudinal cross section with pickup material and attachment housing.
Materials 15 06858 g001
Materials 15 06858 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of three-point bending test procedures.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of three-point bending test procedures.
Materials 15 06858 g002
Materials 15 06858 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean values of (A), Flexural strength and (B), Elastic modulus of evaluated overdenture base materials. * and ** indicate a statistically significant difference by Tukey HSD (p < 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Figure 3. Mean values of (A), Flexural strength and (B), Elastic modulus of evaluated overdenture base materials. * and ** indicate a statistically significant difference by Tukey HSD (p < 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviation (SD).
Materials 15 06858 g003
Materials 15 06858 g004 550
Figure 4. Load deflection curves of evaluated overdenture base materials.
Figure 4. Load deflection curves of evaluated overdenture base materials.
Materials 15 06858 g004
Materials 15 06858 g005 550
Figure 5. Fractured specimens of evaluated overdenture base materials. (A), Paladon 65; (B), Lucitone 199; (C), FREEPRINT denture.
Figure 5. Fractured specimens of evaluated overdenture base materials. (A), Paladon 65; (B), Lucitone 199; (C), FREEPRINT denture.
Materials 15 06858 g005
Table
Table 1. Materials used in study identified by material commercial name, description, manufacturer, processing method, and chemical composition.
Table 1. Materials used in study identified by material commercial name, description, manufacturer, processing method, and chemical composition.
Material DescriptionManufacturerProcessing MethodChemical Composition.
Paladon 65Heat-cured acrylic resin Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany20 min at 90 °C, then cool down slowly in the water bath.Liquid: methylmethacrylate (>90%); tetramethylene dimethacrylate (≥1–≤5%); p-Mentha-1,4-diene (<0.25%)
Powder: (based on methacrylate copolymonomers) methylmethacrylate (≥1–≤5%); dibenzoyl peroxide (≥0.25–<1%)
Lucitone 199Heat-cured high-impact acrylic resinDentsply Intl, York, Pa90 min at 70 °C and 30 min in boiling waterPowder: PMMA (with rubber molecules) 95–100%
Liquid: methyl methacrylate (80–100%), ethylene dimethacrylate (1–20%)
FREEPRINT dentureLight curing resin for 3D-printingDetax, Ettlingen, Germany3D printing in a DLP printer 385 nm, post-curing in a light chamber for 30 min at 60 °CMMA-free
Mixture of acrylic/methacrylic resins with auxiliary matters
PalapressAutopolymerizing resin (pick up material)Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany15 min at 55 °C and 300 KPaLiquid: methylmethacrylate (>90%); tetramethylene dimethacrylate (≥1–≤5%); maleic acid (<0.1%); 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxy benzophenone (<0.25%); mequinol (<1%); Quaternary ammonium compounds, tri-C8-10-alkylmethyl, chlorides (≥0.025–<0.25%)
Powder: (based on methacrylate copolymers) dibenzoyl peroxide (≥1–<2.5%); methyl methacrylate (≥1–≤5%); 1-Benzyl-5-phenylbarbitursäure (≥0–≤5%)
Table
Table 2. ANOVA statistics for flexural strength and elastic modulus.
Table 2. ANOVA statistics for flexural strength and elastic modulus.
ANOVA
Sum of Squaresdf (Degree of Freedom)Mean SquareFp Value
Flexural strengthBetween groups2056.42721028.21412,280<0.001
Within groups2511.8343083.728
Total4568.26132
Elastic modulusBetween groups142,880.893271,440.4460.8190.451
Within groups2,618,450.9463087,281.698
Total2,761,331.83932
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gibreel, M.; Perea-Lowery, L.; Lassila, L.; Vallittu, P.K. Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Three Different Materials for Implant Supported Overdenture: An In-Vitro Study. Materials 2022, 15, 6858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196858

AMA Style

Gibreel M, Perea-Lowery L, Lassila L, Vallittu PK. Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Three Different Materials for Implant Supported Overdenture: An In-Vitro Study. Materials. 2022; 15(19):6858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196858

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gibreel, Mona, Leila Perea-Lowery, Lippo Lassila, and Pekka K. Vallittu. 2022. "Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Three Different Materials for Implant Supported Overdenture: An In-Vitro Study" Materials 15, no. 19: 6858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15196858

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop