Effect of Thermal Cycling on the Flexural Strength and Hardness of New‐Generation Denture Base Materials

Abstract

To evaluate the flexural strength and Vickers microhardness of different CAD-CAM denture base materials. Materials and methods: Sixty rectangular specimens (64 × 10 × 3.3 ± 0.2 mm) were fabricated from 3 different denture base materials (G-CAM, Graphene-reinforced polymethylmethacrylate, GC), Ivotion Base (Prepolymerized polymethylmethacrylate, IV), and Denturetec (3D-printed resin, DT) either by using additive (DT) or subtractive manufacturing (IV and GC). Specimens of each group were divided into 2 subgroups (thermal cycled or nonthermal cycled, n = 10/group). Nonthermal cycled specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 • C for 24 hours and subjected to 3-point flexural strength test with a universal testing machine. Thermal cycled specimens were initially evaluated for Vickers microhardness and subjected to thermal cycling (10,000 cycles at 5-55 • C). Vickers microhardness values were remeasured, and the specimens were subjected to 3-point flexural strength test. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni-corrected Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α = 0.05). Results: Material type and condition significantly affected flexural strength (p ≤ 0.004), whereas their interaction was nonsignificant (p = 0.778). Overall flexural strength of the materials in decreasing order was GC, IV, and DT (p < 0.001), regardless of the condition. Material had a higher effect on flexural strength (ηp 2 = 0.731) than thermal cycling (ηp 2 = 0.142). The effect of the interaction between the material type and thermal cycling on Vickers microhardness was significant (p < 0.001). GC had the highest microhardness before and after thermal cycling (p < 0.001). IV had higher microhardness than DT before thermal cycling (p < 0.001). However, DT and IV showed similar microhardness after thermal cycling (p = 0.665). Thermal cycling decreased the microhardness of GC and IV (p ≤ 0.022), whereas its effect on DT's microhardness was nonsignificant (p = 0.538). Material type had the highest effect on microhardness (ηp 2 = 0.864) followed by the interaction between the main factors (ηp 2 = 0.258). Conclusions: Graphene-reinforced polymethylmethacrylate had the highest flexural strength and Vickers microhardness values, regardless of thermal cycling. Thermal cycling reduced the flexural strength of all resins. Thermal cycling reduced the microhardness of milled polymethylmethacrylate, but not that of 3D-printed resin.

Effect of coffee thermocycling on the surface roughness and stainability of denture base materials with different chemical compositions manufactured with additive and subtractive technologies

“…investigated. 10,12,13,[16][17][18][19] A previous study on the R a of GSM has reported that it had similar values to those of tested prepolymerized PMMA. 19 GSM was also reported to have microhardness that was either similar to or higher than prepolymerized PMMA.…”

“…Even though the number of studies on the optical properties of GSM is limited, 14,20 its mechanical properties have been broadly investigated 10,12,13,16–19 . A previous study on the R a of GSM has reported that it had similar values to those of tested prepolymerized PMMA 19 .…”

“…1 Even though subtractively manufactured prepolymerized disks has improved mechanical properties, 9 reinforcement of prepolymerized PMMA disks with nanographene has also been introduced. 10 Graphene, which is referred as the thinnest material in the universe, 11 is a 2-dimensional honeycomb-shaped crystalline form of carbon 12,13 that is used as a reinforcement phase in PMMA. 14 Nanographene-reinforced PMMA could be considered as promising as a recent study has reported higher flexural strength of nanographene-reinforced PMMA compared with prepolymerized PMMA.…”

“…3,9 Along with increased R a , staining beverages may also result in discoloration. 15 Even though nanographene-reinforced PMMA has been investigated in previous studies, 10,[12][13][14][16][17][18][19] only one study has evaluated the effect of coffee thermocycling (CTC) on nanographene-reinforced PMMA's R a and stainability, which tested tooth-colored materials. 20 In addition, the number of studies on the R a and stainability of additively manufactured denture base materials after CTC is limited to one and that study did not involve a comparison with nanographene-reinforced PMMA.…”

“…14 Nanographene-reinforced PMMA could be considered as promising as a recent study has reported higher flexural strength of nanographene-reinforced PMMA compared with prepolymerized PMMA. 10 Surface roughness (R a ) is a critical determinant for the long-term use of a prosthesis as increased R a might lead to plaque accumulation and biofilm formation along with esthetic complications due to discoloration. 3 Previous studies have reported 0.2 μm as the acceptability threshold for R a .…”