eISSN: 2299-551X
ISSN: 0011-4553
Journal of Stomatology
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Reviewers Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
5/2019
vol. 72
 
Share:
Share:
abstract:
Original paper

Evaluation of some mechanical and physical properties of different types of injectable polymer materials used as a base for removable orthodontic appliances

Alaa F. Albo Hassan
1
,
Ali Jameel
2
,
Mohammed Nahidh
1
,
Dina Hamid
1

  1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
  2. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
J Stoma 2019; 72, 5: 215-221
Online publish date: 2020/02/28
View full text Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
Introduction
For many years, cold cure acrylic has been used to construct the removable orthodontic appliances that treated simple cases. The main problem with this type of acrylic is related to monomer release unlike the heat cure acrylic type. With the advances in materials, new injectable polymer materials were developed for construction of removable and complete dentures, but no study has been performed to compare their properties with Orthocryl used for removable orthodontic appliance construction.

Objectives
Aim of the study was to evaluate some mechanical and physical properties of two new materials for use in denture base construction in comparison with Orthocryl.

Material and methods
A total of 150 specimens, 50 each of self-cure acrylic (Orthocryl), polycarbonate (M10) and injectable acrylic (Acrilato), were fabricated according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The following properties were tested using 10 samples of each type: impact strength, hardness, surface roughness, flexural strength, and water sorption and solubility. One-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey tests compared results among the groups.

Results
Statistically significant group differences were found in all tests except those for water sorption and solubility, which showed non-significant differences.

Conclusions
The good properties of M10 and Acrilato make them suitable alternatives to Orthocryl. The major issue is the cost and the availability of the required softening device in dental laboratories.

keywords:

cold-cure, polycarbonate, injectable acrylic, orthodontics

 
Quick links
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.