Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials
Purpose The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression‐molding and injection‐molding) and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (milled and 3D‐printed) denture base materials. Ma...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of prosthodontics 2023-04, Vol.32 (S1), p.87-95 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 95 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | S1 |
| container_start_page | 87 |
| container_title | Journal of prosthodontics |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Alfaraj, Amal Chu, Tien‐Min G. Alouthah, Hesham Yang, Chao‐Chieh Lin, Wei‐Shao |
| description | Purpose
The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression‐molding and injection‐molding) and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (milled and 3D‐printed) denture base materials.
Materials and methods
Eighty standard dogbone‐shaped specimens were fabricated from four materials: compression‐molding, injection‐molding, milled, and 3D‐printed denture base materials. A 3‐mm cutoff was removed from each specimen at the midsection, and all specimens were reattached with either auto‐polymerizing (n = 10) or heat‐polymerizing (n = 10) reliner. The TBS was measured on the universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the fractured surfaces at cross sections to determine the dominant failure mode in each group. Two‐way ANOVA was used to examine the effects of denture base material and reliner on the TBS (α = 0.05). Weibull survival analysis was also used to determine the survival probability curves.
Results
Heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner, except in the compression‐molding (p = 0.573) groups. Compression‐molding denture base material connected with a heat‐polymerizing reliner showed the highest TBS (29.8 ± 6.9 MPa), whereas 3D‐printed denture base material connected with an auto‐polymerizing reliner showed the lowest TBS (7.2 ± 0.9 MPa). The survival probability based on the Weibull model demonstrated that the compression‐molding denture base material connected with either auto‐polymerizing or heat‐polymerizing reliners had the longest survival time to failure, whereas 3D‐printed denture base material relined with auto‐polymerizing reline material showed the shortest survival time to failure. Under the SEM, the compression‐molding groups demonstrated that the failure modes were mixed but predominantly cohesive. The injection‐molding and milled groups showed predominantly adhesive failures at the denture base‐reline material interfaces. The dominant mode of failure in the 3D‐printed groups was cohesive failures within the bonding adhesive.
Conclusions
Although the heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner in most denture base materials, the compression‐molding denture base material can achieve high TBS with both reliners. When the auto‐polymerizing reliner is used with 3D‐printed denture base material, clinicians should be awa |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jopr.13642 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2765073200</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2794758340</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4232-c36c19ed1c5b01c0e0b1e2ae5bfd12a0cdb61583f3920f1e5e631afcf9410083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1OwzAQhS0E4n_DAZAlNgip4ImTtFlW5V9FRagLdpHjTGiqxC52AiqrngAhccOeBKcBFizwZizPN8968wg5AHYK7pxN9cycAg99b41sQ8C9Ts-PHtfdnQVRJ_LhcYvsWDtlDCDowSbZ4mHIWRj42-R9jMrmBdJEq5TayqB6qiZUZ1TUlV4uPma6mJdo8rdcPVHhmAmK6u97iqqqDVKDRa7QWKoVrSZIpVYvrpVrJYrV8KB_vlx8Dvp3vyOJsEhLUTkpUdg9spG5gvvfdZeMLy_Gg-vOcHR1M-gPO9L3nD_JQwkRpiCDhIFkyBJAT2CQZCl4gsk0CZ1VnvHIYxlggCEHkcnMLYOxHt8lx63szOjnGm0Vl7mVWBRCoa5t7HXDgHW5x5hDj_6gU10b56ehIr_rfvEb6qSlpNHWGszimclLYeYxsLgJKW5CilchOfjwW7JOSkx_0Z9UHAAt8OqSmf8jFd-O7h9a0S9WwqIo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2794758340</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Alfaraj, Amal ; Chu, Tien‐Min G. ; Alouthah, Hesham ; Yang, Chao‐Chieh ; Lin, Wei‐Shao</creator><creatorcontrib>Alfaraj, Amal ; Chu, Tien‐Min G. ; Alouthah, Hesham ; Yang, Chao‐Chieh ; Lin, Wei‐Shao</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression‐molding and injection‐molding) and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (milled and 3D‐printed) denture base materials.
Materials and methods
Eighty standard dogbone‐shaped specimens were fabricated from four materials: compression‐molding, injection‐molding, milled, and 3D‐printed denture base materials. A 3‐mm cutoff was removed from each specimen at the midsection, and all specimens were reattached with either auto‐polymerizing (n = 10) or heat‐polymerizing (n = 10) reliner. The TBS was measured on the universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the fractured surfaces at cross sections to determine the dominant failure mode in each group. Two‐way ANOVA was used to examine the effects of denture base material and reliner on the TBS (α = 0.05). Weibull survival analysis was also used to determine the survival probability curves.
Results
Heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner, except in the compression‐molding (p = 0.573) groups. Compression‐molding denture base material connected with a heat‐polymerizing reliner showed the highest TBS (29.8 ± 6.9 MPa), whereas 3D‐printed denture base material connected with an auto‐polymerizing reliner showed the lowest TBS (7.2 ± 0.9 MPa). The survival probability based on the Weibull model demonstrated that the compression‐molding denture base material connected with either auto‐polymerizing or heat‐polymerizing reliners had the longest survival time to failure, whereas 3D‐printed denture base material relined with auto‐polymerizing reline material showed the shortest survival time to failure. Under the SEM, the compression‐molding groups demonstrated that the failure modes were mixed but predominantly cohesive. The injection‐molding and milled groups showed predominantly adhesive failures at the denture base‐reline material interfaces. The dominant mode of failure in the 3D‐printed groups was cohesive failures within the bonding adhesive.
Conclusions
Although the heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner in most denture base materials, the compression‐molding denture base material can achieve high TBS with both reliners. When the auto‐polymerizing reliner is used with 3D‐printed denture base material, clinicians should be aware of lower TBS value and possible cohesive failures, and the detachment of the reliner from the denture base.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-941X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-849X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13642</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36630654</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>3D‐printing ; Acrylic Resins - chemistry ; Bond strength ; Compression ; Computer-Aided Design ; Denture Bases ; Dentures ; Failure ; Heat ; Hot Temperature ; Injection ; Interfaces ; Materials Testing ; milling ; Scanning electron microscopy ; SEM ; Survival ; Survival analysis ; Tensile Strength ; Weibull</subject><ispartof>Journal of prosthodontics, 2023-04, Vol.32 (S1), p.87-95</ispartof><rights>2023 by the American College of Prosthodontists.</rights><rights>2023 American College of Prosthodontists.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4232-c36c19ed1c5b01c0e0b1e2ae5bfd12a0cdb61583f3920f1e5e631afcf9410083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4232-c36c19ed1c5b01c0e0b1e2ae5bfd12a0cdb61583f3920f1e5e631afcf9410083</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4881-0569</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjopr.13642$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjopr.13642$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36630654$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alfaraj, Amal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Tien‐Min G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alouthah, Hesham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Chao‐Chieh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Wei‐Shao</creatorcontrib><title>Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials</title><title>Journal of prosthodontics</title><addtitle>J Prosthodont</addtitle><description>Purpose
The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression‐molding and injection‐molding) and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (milled and 3D‐printed) denture base materials.
Materials and methods
Eighty standard dogbone‐shaped specimens were fabricated from four materials: compression‐molding, injection‐molding, milled, and 3D‐printed denture base materials. A 3‐mm cutoff was removed from each specimen at the midsection, and all specimens were reattached with either auto‐polymerizing (n = 10) or heat‐polymerizing (n = 10) reliner. The TBS was measured on the universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the fractured surfaces at cross sections to determine the dominant failure mode in each group. Two‐way ANOVA was used to examine the effects of denture base material and reliner on the TBS (α = 0.05). Weibull survival analysis was also used to determine the survival probability curves.
Results
Heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner, except in the compression‐molding (p = 0.573) groups. Compression‐molding denture base material connected with a heat‐polymerizing reliner showed the highest TBS (29.8 ± 6.9 MPa), whereas 3D‐printed denture base material connected with an auto‐polymerizing reliner showed the lowest TBS (7.2 ± 0.9 MPa). The survival probability based on the Weibull model demonstrated that the compression‐molding denture base material connected with either auto‐polymerizing or heat‐polymerizing reliners had the longest survival time to failure, whereas 3D‐printed denture base material relined with auto‐polymerizing reline material showed the shortest survival time to failure. Under the SEM, the compression‐molding groups demonstrated that the failure modes were mixed but predominantly cohesive. The injection‐molding and milled groups showed predominantly adhesive failures at the denture base‐reline material interfaces. The dominant mode of failure in the 3D‐printed groups was cohesive failures within the bonding adhesive.
Conclusions
Although the heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner in most denture base materials, the compression‐molding denture base material can achieve high TBS with both reliners. When the auto‐polymerizing reliner is used with 3D‐printed denture base material, clinicians should be aware of lower TBS value and possible cohesive failures, and the detachment of the reliner from the denture base.</description><subject>3D‐printing</subject><subject>Acrylic Resins - chemistry</subject><subject>Bond strength</subject><subject>Compression</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Denture Bases</subject><subject>Dentures</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Heat</subject><subject>Hot Temperature</subject><subject>Injection</subject><subject>Interfaces</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>milling</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>SEM</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Survival analysis</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Weibull</subject><issn>1059-941X</issn><issn>1532-849X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1OwzAQhS0E4n_DAZAlNgip4ImTtFlW5V9FRagLdpHjTGiqxC52AiqrngAhccOeBKcBFizwZizPN8968wg5AHYK7pxN9cycAg99b41sQ8C9Ts-PHtfdnQVRJ_LhcYvsWDtlDCDowSbZ4mHIWRj42-R9jMrmBdJEq5TayqB6qiZUZ1TUlV4uPma6mJdo8rdcPVHhmAmK6u97iqqqDVKDRa7QWKoVrSZIpVYvrpVrJYrV8KB_vlx8Dvp3vyOJsEhLUTkpUdg9spG5gvvfdZeMLy_Gg-vOcHR1M-gPO9L3nD_JQwkRpiCDhIFkyBJAT2CQZCl4gsk0CZ1VnvHIYxlggCEHkcnMLYOxHt8lx63szOjnGm0Vl7mVWBRCoa5t7HXDgHW5x5hDj_6gU10b56ehIr_rfvEb6qSlpNHWGszimclLYeYxsLgJKW5CilchOfjwW7JOSkx_0Z9UHAAt8OqSmf8jFd-O7h9a0S9WwqIo</recordid><startdate>202304</startdate><enddate>202304</enddate><creator>Alfaraj, Amal</creator><creator>Chu, Tien‐Min G.</creator><creator>Alouthah, Hesham</creator><creator>Yang, Chao‐Chieh</creator><creator>Lin, Wei‐Shao</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4881-0569</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202304</creationdate><title>Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials</title><author>Alfaraj, Amal ; Chu, Tien‐Min G. ; Alouthah, Hesham ; Yang, Chao‐Chieh ; Lin, Wei‐Shao</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4232-c36c19ed1c5b01c0e0b1e2ae5bfd12a0cdb61583f3920f1e5e631afcf9410083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>3D‐printing</topic><topic>Acrylic Resins - chemistry</topic><topic>Bond strength</topic><topic>Compression</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Denture Bases</topic><topic>Dentures</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Heat</topic><topic>Hot Temperature</topic><topic>Injection</topic><topic>Interfaces</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>milling</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>SEM</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Survival analysis</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Weibull</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alfaraj, Amal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Tien‐Min G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alouthah, Hesham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Chao‐Chieh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Wei‐Shao</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of prosthodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alfaraj, Amal</au><au>Chu, Tien‐Min G.</au><au>Alouthah, Hesham</au><au>Yang, Chao‐Chieh</au><au>Lin, Wei‐Shao</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials</atitle><jtitle>Journal of prosthodontics</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthodont</addtitle><date>2023-04</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>87</spage><epage>95</epage><pages>87-95</pages><issn>1059-941X</issn><eissn>1532-849X</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The study aimed to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional (compression‐molding and injection‐molding) and computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (milled and 3D‐printed) denture base materials.
Materials and methods
Eighty standard dogbone‐shaped specimens were fabricated from four materials: compression‐molding, injection‐molding, milled, and 3D‐printed denture base materials. A 3‐mm cutoff was removed from each specimen at the midsection, and all specimens were reattached with either auto‐polymerizing (n = 10) or heat‐polymerizing (n = 10) reliner. The TBS was measured on the universal testing machine. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to examine the fractured surfaces at cross sections to determine the dominant failure mode in each group. Two‐way ANOVA was used to examine the effects of denture base material and reliner on the TBS (α = 0.05). Weibull survival analysis was also used to determine the survival probability curves.
Results
Heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner, except in the compression‐molding (p = 0.573) groups. Compression‐molding denture base material connected with a heat‐polymerizing reliner showed the highest TBS (29.8 ± 6.9 MPa), whereas 3D‐printed denture base material connected with an auto‐polymerizing reliner showed the lowest TBS (7.2 ± 0.9 MPa). The survival probability based on the Weibull model demonstrated that the compression‐molding denture base material connected with either auto‐polymerizing or heat‐polymerizing reliners had the longest survival time to failure, whereas 3D‐printed denture base material relined with auto‐polymerizing reline material showed the shortest survival time to failure. Under the SEM, the compression‐molding groups demonstrated that the failure modes were mixed but predominantly cohesive. The injection‐molding and milled groups showed predominantly adhesive failures at the denture base‐reline material interfaces. The dominant mode of failure in the 3D‐printed groups was cohesive failures within the bonding adhesive.
Conclusions
Although the heat‐polymerizing reliner led to a higher TBS than the auto‐polymerizing reliner in most denture base materials, the compression‐molding denture base material can achieve high TBS with both reliners. When the auto‐polymerizing reliner is used with 3D‐printed denture base material, clinicians should be aware of lower TBS value and possible cohesive failures, and the detachment of the reliner from the denture base.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>36630654</pmid><doi>10.1111/jopr.13642</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4881-0569</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1059-941X |
| ispartof | Journal of prosthodontics, 2023-04, Vol.32 (S1), p.87-95 |
| issn | 1059-941X 1532-849X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2765073200 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | 3D‐printing Acrylic Resins - chemistry Bond strength Compression Computer-Aided Design Denture Bases Dentures Failure Heat Hot Temperature Injection Interfaces Materials Testing milling Scanning electron microscopy SEM Survival Survival analysis Tensile Strength Weibull |
| title | Tensile bond strength of auto‐polymerizing and heat‐polymerizing denture reliners on the conventional and CAD–CAM denture base materials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T18%3A34%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tensile%20bond%20strength%20of%20auto%E2%80%90polymerizing%20and%20heat%E2%80%90polymerizing%20denture%20reliners%20on%20the%20conventional%20and%20CAD%E2%80%93CAM%20denture%20base%20materials&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20prosthodontics&rft.au=Alfaraj,%20Amal&rft.date=2023-04&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=87&rft.epage=95&rft.pages=87-95&rft.issn=1059-941X&rft.eissn=1532-849X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jopr.13642&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2794758340%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2794758340&rft_id=info:pmid/36630654&rfr_iscdi=true |