SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research) / 2007 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

The comparison of hardness of total and partial prostheses acrylic resin denture teeth

Tam ve bölümlü protezlerde kullanılan akrilik rezin dişlerin sertliklerinin karşılaştırılması

Wolfgang B. HANNAK
Wolfgang B. FREESMEYER
Bahadır ERSU
Pages
58–64
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The micro-filled composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked teeth tested.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hardness of acrylic resin teeth of different manufacturers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Method: Acrylic resin teeth from different manufacturers were included to this study were, Heraeus Kulzer Premium, Ivoclar SR-Orthosit, Vita Physiodens, Vita Triostat, Kleime Creapearl, Merz Integrale, Heraeus Kulzer Orthognath, Dentsply Genios. 64 acrylic resin teeth, 4 anterior 4 posterior teeth groups from 8 manufacturer's, were embedded into clear acrylic blocks and the surfaces were prepared in terms of areas for the measurements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The micro-filled composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked teeth tested.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hardness of acrylic resin teeth of different manufacturers. Materials and Method: Acrylic resin teeth from different manufacturers were included to this study were, Heraeus Kulzer Premium, Ivoclar SR-Orthosit, Vita Physiodens, Vita Triostat, Kleime Creapearl, Merz Integrale, Heraeus Kulzer Orthognath, Dentsply Genios. 64 acrylic resin teeth, 4 anterior 4 posterior teeth groups from 8 manufacturer's, were embedded into clear acrylic blocks and the surfaces were prepared in terms of areas for the measurements. Vickers microhardness analyses method was used, to measure the surface hardness. The measurements were repeated three times from different points for each specimen. Results: In this study, the measured values were evaluated with non- parametric Kruskall Wallis variance analysis method and as a result it was determined that the difference in between the anterior and pos¬terior groups were significantly different (KW=24.75, p=0.Q01; KW= 24.45, p=0,001). For the anterior teeth Vita Physiodens group, fort the posterior Ivoclar SR-Orthosit group had the highest values, on the other hand the lowest values were determined fort the Merz Integrale group both for anterior and posterior teeth. The teeth groups, which had different values, were determined with the Multiple Comparison Test. According to this, Vita had the highest surface hardness where Merz Integrale had the lowest. Conclusion: The micro-filled composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked teeth tested.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmada farklı üreticilere ait akrilik rezin dişlerin yüzey sertlik değerlerinin ölçülerek, karşılaştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Sekiz farklı firmaya ait akrilik rezin dişler araştırmaya dahil edildi; Heraeus Kulzer Premium, Ivoclar SR-Orthosit, Vita Physiodens, Vita Triostat, Kleime Creapearl, Merz Integrate, Heraeus Kulzer Orthognath, Dentsply Genios. Akrilik diş örneklerinden 4 ön ve 4 arka diş gruplarına ait olmak üzere toplam 64 akrilik rezin diş, otopolimerizan yeşil akril bloklara gömüldü ve inceleme için kullanılacak yüzeyler ölçüm için uygun alanlar haline getirildi. Yüzey sertliğinin ölçümünde Vickers mikrosertlik analiz yöntemi kullanıldı. Her bir örnek için ölçümler 3'er kez farklı noktalarda tekrarlandı. Bulgular: Çalışmada ölçülen değerler non-parametrik bir test olan Kruskall-Wallis Varyans analiz yöntemi ile değerlendirildi ve gruplar arası farkın ön ve arka bölgelerde istatistiksel olarak önemli olduğu saptandı (KW=24.75, p=0.001; KW= 24.45, p=0,001). Farklılığı hangi grupların oluşturduğu ise Çoklu Karşılaştırma Testi uygulanarak belirlendi. Ön bölgede Vita Physiodens grubunun, arka bölgede Ivoclar SR-Orthosit grubunun yüzey sertlik değerleri en yüksek bulunurken her iki bölgede de en düşük olarak Merz Integrale grubunda olduğu izlendi. Sonuç: Mikro dolduruculu kompozit katkılı dişlerin yüzey sertlikleri akrilik dişlere oranla daha yüksek bulundu. Fakat çapraz bağlar içeren dişler ile aralarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanamadı.

🔖

Cite This Article

HANNAK, W. B., FREESMEYER, W. B., ERSU, B. (2022). The comparison of hardness of total and partial prostheses acrylic resin denture teeth. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research), Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 58–64. https://ajindex.com/articles/528446

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Phillips RW. Science of Dental Materials. 9th ed., Philadel¬ phia, 1991, W.B. Saunders Co
  2. Anusavice KJ. Phillip's Science of Dental Materials, lOth ed., Philadelphia, 1996, W.B. Saunders Co
  3. Rhan AO, Heartwell CM. Text book of complete dentures. 5th ed., London, 1993, Lea&Febiger
  4. Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, Bush PJ, Carter JM. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Apr;85(4):386-95
  5. Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT, Jones AH. Microhardness of provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Nov;82(5):525-8
  6. Hirano S, May KB, Wagner WC, Hacker CH. In vitro wear of resin denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Feb;79(2):152-5
  7. Abe Y, Sato Y, Akagawa Y, Ohkawa S. An in vitro study of high-strength resin posterior denture tooth wear. Int J Prosthodont. 1997 Jan-Feb;10(l):28-34
  8. Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, Bull S, Rusby S, Wassell RW. Hardness measured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dent Mater. 2007 Sep;23(9):1079-85
  9. Abe Y, Sato Y, Taji T, Akagawa Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. An in vitro wear study of posterior denture tooth materials on human enamel. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 May;28(5):407-12
  10. Zuccari AG, Oshida Y, Moore BK. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part I: Mechanical properties. Biomed Mater Eng. 1997;7(5):327-43
  11. Zuccari AG, Oshida Y, Miyazaki M, Fukuishi K, Onose H, Moore BK. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part II: Changes in mechanical proper ties as a function of time and physical properties. Biomed Mater Eng. 1997;7(5):345-55
  12. Mahoney E, Holt A, Swain M, Kilpatrick N. The hardness and modulus of elasticity of primary molar teeth: an ultramicro-indentation study. J Dent. 2000 Nov;28(8):589-94
  13. Mercier P, Bellavance F. Effect of artificial tooth material on mandibular residual ridge resorption. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002 Jun;68(6):346-50
  14. Çiftçi Y, Canay S. The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jul- Aug;15(4):571-82
  15. Davis DM, Rimrott R, Zarb GA. Studies on frameworks for osseointegrated prostheses: Part 2. The effect of adding acrylic resin or porcelain to form the occlusal superstruc ture. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988 Winter;3(4):275-80
  16. Brânemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental back ground. J Prosthet Dent. 1983