Physical Properties of Four Acrylic Denture Base Resisns

Abstract

Abstract Resistance to impact fracture and high flexural strength are desirable properties of denture base acrylics. The purpose of this laboratory study was to determine the Izod impact strength, the flexural strength, the flexural modulus, and the yield distance for four premium denture resins. Bar specimens 86 x 11 x 3 mm of Lucitone 199, Fricke Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack were fabricated following the manufacturer's instructions for heat processing. The bars were surface finished using silicon carbide paper to 600 grit. Ten specimens from three lots of each material were made (n=30). Flexural strength, flexural modulus, and yield distance were determined by testing the specimens to failure using a three-point test fixture. Izod impact strength was determined using an Izod tester on un-notched specimens generated from the flexural test (n=60). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey's test were used for statistical comparison of each property. There were significant differences in the physical properties among the denture acrylics tested. Lucitone 199 demonstrated the highest impact strength, flexural strength, and yield distance (p<0.05). Lucitone 199 with an Izod impact strength of 5.5 ± 1.2 N·m, a flexural strength of 99.5 ± 4.5 MPa, and yield distance of 9.9 ± 0.76 mm exhibited statistically greater results than Fricki Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack. Fricki Hi- I with a yield distance of 7.3 ± 1.1 mm was statically greater than ProBase Hot and Sledgehammer Maxipack. Fricki Hi-I, ProBase Hot, and Sledgehammer Maxipack were statistically similar for the Izod impact strength and flexural strength tests performed. ProBase Hot and Sledgehammer Maxipack yielded statistically similar results for all tests performed. Flexural modulus had an inverse relationship to the impact strength, flexural strength, and yield distance. Citation Meng TR, Latta MA. Physical Properties of Four Acrylic Denture Base Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005 November;(6)4:093-100.