Influence of Reinforcing Agents on the Mechanical Properties of Denture Base Resin: A Systematic Review.

Knowledge about the influence of fillers in denture base resin is vague. This systematic review aimed to report the reinforcing effect of fillers on the mechanical properties of denture base resin by following PRISMA guidelines. Two electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline & Web of Science) were searched for articles using the keywords: fibers in denture base, fillers in denture base, and reinforcement of denture base. Laboratory studies complying with the inclusion criteria were reviewed according to the set protocol. The established focus question was: "Do reinforcing fillers positively influence the mechanical properties of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) heat polymerized denture base material?" A total of twenty-nine relevant papers qualified for final inclusion. Of these, 24 were determined to have a moderate risk of bias. Micron or nano-sized metal/metal oxides particles and glass fibers were the frequently used reinforcing agents. The trend of evaluating fractural strength (FS) was common. Most of the studies limited the use of reinforcing agents up to 5 wt.%. FS, fracture toughness (FT), and impact strength (IS) tend to increase if the fillers are chemically bonded and well-dispersed in denture base resin. Though fillers with a higher elastic modulus increase the hardness of the reinforced denture base resin, they compromise other mechanical properties. Well-dispersed lower filler loading PMMA denture base resin can enhance the FS, FT, and other related mechanical properties.

Bonding integrity and compressive strength of re-bonded, surface conditioned and Er Cr YSGG laser treated lithium disilicate ceramics.

AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) and compressive strength (CS) of Er Cr YSGG laser (ECL) treated, re-bonded lithium disilicate (LD) ceramic in comparison to standard conventional conditioning (hydrofluoric acid (HFA) and silane). METHODS: One hundred LD ceramic disks were divided equally for SBS and CS testing. Eighty samples were conventionally surface treated and bonded to resin cement followed by de-bonding of the cement build-up. All de-bonded specimens were divided into four groups based on re-bonding surface treatments (HFA, primer, adhesive, and ECL). Resin cement build-ups were performed in 40 specimens for SBS testing (universal testing machine); however, the remaining 40 specimens were tested for CS. Ten specimens each were used as controls (surface treatment was performed once and no primary resin cement bonding) for SBS and CS assessment. Surface topography was assessed using a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: The maximum and minimum SBS values were shown by groups: control (33.42 ± 3.28 megapascals (MPa)); and ECL (17.50 ± 2.22 MPa) respectively. The maximum and minimum CSs were displayed by specimens in the ECL group (439.45 ± 70.68 MPa) and the control group (237.28 ± 19.96 MPa), respectively. For ECL specimens, SBS was significantly lower and CS was significantly higher as compared to control specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the Er Cr YSGG laser significantly improved the CS of de-bonded ceramic specimens. However, it did not show a positive influence on the bond integrity of re-bonded ceramics in comparison to conventional surface treatment regimes.

Effect of contemporary retraction agents and cleaning with hydrogen peroxide on the polymerization of elastomeric impression materials.

The aim of the study is to investigate the polymerization inhibition of elastomeric impression materials vinylpoly siloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE) when used in combination with retraction materials with and without subsequent cleaning with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Methods: Seven stainless steel specimens were fabricated. Four hundred and twenty impressions were made with three different elastomeric materials (140 each) as follows: group 1: VPS-Panasil; group 2: VPS-Express; group 3: PE-Monophase. Each material group was further subdivided into seven subgroups, based on use of no retraction material (control), three different retraction materials [Retraction capsule (RC3M), Dryz, Expasyl], and two cleaning techniques (water and H2O2). All subgroups included 20 impressions, which were made by a single operator using an automix gun. Evaluations were made using a visual scale by three calibrated examiners blindly and independently. Subjective categorization of the impressions were made as inhibited and uninhibited. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Inhibited impressions were lower than uninhibited impressions among VPS materials (Panasil and Express); Panasil and Express showed comparable (p > 0.05) impression retardation. PE showed significantly higher inhibition compared to VPS materials (p < 0.05). Expasyl showed significantly higher polymerization inhibition than other retraction materials (p < 0.05). The use of H2O2 for cleaning showed significant reduction in polymerization inhibition than cleaning with water for Expasyl (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Overall contemporary retraction materials showed low potential for polymerization inhibition of elastomeric impression materials. Expasyl should be cleaned with H2O2 prior to impression making. However, Dryz and RC3M can show accurate impressions with water cleaning alone.