Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorA.V.M. Geerts, Greta
dc.contributor.authorOverturf, Jan-Hendrik
dc.contributor.authorG. Oberholzer, Theuns
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:46:08Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:46:08Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.date.modified2010-03-08T06:29:49Z
dc.identifier.issn00223913
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60108-0
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/29116
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem Fracture of an interim fixed partial denture (FPD) may jeopardize the success of the interim prosthodontic treatment phase and cause patient discomfort. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resin and a bis-acryl composite (BAC) resin reinforced with stainless steel wire, glass fiber, and polyethylene fiber. Material and methods Four groups (n=13) of each of the 2 materials were prepared for the single-edge notch 3-point-bending test. Three groups had the different reinforcements, and the group without reinforcement served as the control. Using a universal testing machine, peak load to fracture was recorded and fracture toughness (KIC) was calculated in MNm-1.5. Median KIC values were compared by means of nonparametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test, a=.05). Results For the controls, the fracture toughness for PMMA resin (KIC=27.9) was significantly lower (P<.01) than for BAC resin (KIC=31.2). Glass fibers and stainless steel wire reinforcements produced significantly higher fracture toughness for both PMMA (KIC=34.4, P<.01, and KIC=39.0, P<.001, respectively) and BAC resin (KIC=42.3, P<.001, and KIC=44.0, P<.001, respectively), but the polyethylene fibers did not (KIC=25.8, P>.10, for PMMA resin and KIC=33.1, P>.10, for BAC resin). There was no significant difference between the fracture toughness of the wire and glass fiber reinforcements for both interim materials (P>.10 in both instances). Conclusions Of the 3 reinforcement methods evaluated, wire and glass fiber reinforced the PMMA and BAC resin materials best. (J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:461-467)
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMosby, Inc.
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom461
dc.relation.ispartofpageto467
dc.relation.ispartofissue6
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
dc.relation.ispartofvolume99
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical Engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode110599
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode0903
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1105
dc.titleThe effect of different reinforcements on the fracture toughness of materials for interim restorations
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.date.issued2008
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorOberholzer, Theunis


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record