PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to evaluate effect of two surface treatments, sandblasting and monomer treatment, on tensile bond strength between two long term resilient liners and poly (methyl methacrylate) denture base resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two resilient liners Super-Soft and Molloplast-B were selected.Sixty acrylic resin (Trevalon) specimens with cross sectional area of 10x10 mm were prepared and divided into two groups of 30 specimens each. Each group was surface treated (n = 10) by sandblasting (250 micro alumina particles), monomer treatment (for 180 sec) and control (no surface treatment). Resilient liners were processed between 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) surfaces, in the dimensions of 10x10x3 mm. Tensile strength was determined with Instron Universal testing machine, at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min; and the modes of failure (adhesive, cohesive or mixed) were recorded. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey HSD test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Monomer pretreatment of acrylic resin produced significantly higher bond strengths when compared to sandblasting and control for both resilient liners (P < .001). Sandblasting significantly decreased the bond strength for both the liners when compared to monomer pretreatment and control (P < .001). Mean bond strength of Super-Soft lined specimens was significantly higher than Molloplast-B in various surface treatment groups (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Surface pretreatment of the acrylic resin with monomer prior to resilient liner application is an effective method to increase bond strength between the base and soft liner. Sandblasting, on the contrary, is not recommended as it weakens the bond between the two.
Aluminum Oxide ; Collodion ; Denture Bases ; Dentures ; Dimethylpolysiloxanes ; Polymethyl Methacrylate ; Silicone Elastomers ; Tensile Strength

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and bis-acryl composite resin reinforced with polyethylene and glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of rectangular test specimens (n = 15) of each of the two resin/fiber reinforcement were prepared for flexural strength test and unreinforced group served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean flexural strengths (MPa) was compared by one way ANOVA test, followed by Scheffe analysis, using a significance level of 0.05. Flexural strength between fiber-reinforced resin groups were compared by independent samples t-test. RESULTS: For control groups, the flexural strength for PMMA (215.53 MPa) was significantly lower than for bis-acryl composite resin (240.09 MPa). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher flexural strength for both PMMA (267.01 MPa) and bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa), but the polyethylene fibers showed no significant difference (PMMA resin-218.55 MPa and bis-acryl composite resin-241.66 MPa). Among the reinforced groups, silane impregnated glass fibers showed highest flexural strength for bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA resin and bis-acryl composite resin materials produced highest flexural strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in-vitro study, the use of glass and polyethylene fibers may be an effective way to reinforce provisional restorative resins. When esthetics and space are of concern, glass fiber seems to be the most appropriate method for reinforcing provisional restorative resins.
Collodion ; Esthetics ; Glass ; Polyethylene ; Polymethyl Methacrylate ; Reinforcement (Psychology)

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and bis-acryl composite resin reinforced with polyethylene and glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of rectangular test specimens (n = 15) of each of the two resin/fiber reinforcement were prepared for flexural strength test and unreinforced group served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean flexural strengths (MPa) was compared by one way ANOVA test, followed by Scheffe analysis, using a significance level of 0.05. Flexural strength between fiber-reinforced resin groups were compared by independent samples t-test. RESULTS: For control groups, the flexural strength for PMMA (215.53 MPa) was significantly lower than for bis-acryl composite resin (240.09 MPa). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher flexural strength for both PMMA (267.01 MPa) and bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa), but the polyethylene fibers showed no significant difference (PMMA resin-218.55 MPa and bis-acryl composite resin-241.66 MPa). Among the reinforced groups, silane impregnated glass fibers showed highest flexural strength for bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa). CONCLUSION: Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA resin and bis-acryl composite resin materials produced highest flexural strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this in-vitro study, the use of glass and polyethylene fibers may be an effective way to reinforce provisional restorative resins. When esthetics and space are of concern, glass fiber seems to be the most appropriate method for reinforcing provisional restorative resins.
Collodion ; Esthetics ; Glass ; Polyethylene ; Polymethyl Methacrylate ; Reinforcement (Psychology)