In vitro study on exothermic reaction of polymer-based provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials measured by differential scanning calorimetry.
- Author:
Mun Jeung KO
1
;
Ah Ran PAE
;
Sung Hun KIM
Author Information
1. Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University, Korea.
- Publication Type:In Vitro ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Polymer-based provisional crown and fixed partial denture materials;
Differential scanning calorimetry;
Heat capacity
- MeSH:
Calorimetry, Differential Scanning*;
Crowns*;
Denture, Partial, Fixed*;
Fluorescence;
Hot Temperature;
Polymerization;
Polymers;
Polymethyl Methacrylate
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2006;44(6):690-698
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS: The heat produced during polymerization of polymer-based provisional materials may cause thermal damage to the vital pulp. PURPOSE: This study was performed to evaluate the exotherm reaction of the polymerbased provisional materials during polymerization by differential scanning calorimetry and to compare the temperature changes of different types of resins. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three dimethacrylate-based materials (Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Plus, Luxatemp Fluorescence) and five monomethacrylate-based material (Snap, Alike, Unifast TRAD, Duralay, Jet) were selected. Temperature changes of polymer-based provisional materials during polymerization in this study were evaluated by D.S.C Q-1000 (TA Instrument, Wilmington, DE, USA). The following three measurements were determined from the temperature versus time plot: (1) peak temperature, (2) time to reach peak temperature, (3) heat capacity. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison Bonferroni test at the significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The mean peak temperature was 39.5 degrees C (+/- 1.0). The peak temperature of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Duralay > Unifast TRAD, Alike > Jet > Luxatemp Plus, Protemp 3 Garant, Snap, Luxatemp Fluorescence. The mean time to reach peak temperature was 95.95 sec (+/- 64.0). The mean time to reach peak temperature of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Snap, Jet > Duralay > Alike > Unifast TRAD > Luxatemp Plus, Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Fluorescence. The mean heat capacity was 287.2 J/g (+/- 107.68). The heat capacity of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Duralay > TRAD, Jet, Alike > Snap, Luxatemp Fluorescence, Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Plus. CONCLUSION: The heat capacity of materials, determined by D.S.C., is a factor in determining the thermal insulating properties of restorative materials. The peak temperature of PMMA was significantly higher than others (PEMA, dimethacrylate). No significant differences were found among PEMA (Snap) and dimethacrylate (P > 0.05). The time to reach peak temperature was greatest with PEMA, followed by PMMA and dimethacrylate. The heat capacity of PMMA was significantly higher than others (PEMA, dimethacrylate). No significant differences were found among PEMA and dimethacrylate (P>0.05).
