IADR Abstract Archives
Flexural-Modulus of New Denture Base Materials With Improved Patient Comfort
Objectives: Several new denture base materials have been developed as alternatives to conventional materials. These materials have been designed to address the lack of patient comfort due to the stiffness of poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA). They also report lower incidence of fracture due to the material’s flexibility. This research measured and compared the flexural modulus of four popular non-PMMA base denture materials.
Methods: Four flexible base denture materials were selected: Valplast (Valplast International Corp, Westbury, NY); TCS (Thermoplastic Comfort Systems Dental Inc, Signal Hill, CA); Lucitone® FRS (Dentsply, York, PA); and Duraflex (Myerson LLC, Chicago, IL). Valplast, TCS, and FRS are all nylon materials, while Duraflex is made from polypropylene. All materials were formed by one of two commercial dental laboratories by the injection process outlined by each manufacturer. Samples were initially made as a block (65x40x5 mm) as outlined by ISO 20795-1. Blocks were subsequently machined and polished into test bars (64x10x3.3mm). Bars were stored in water at 37C until tested. All samples were tested within 48-hours per the ISO. A three-point flexural test (crosshead speed of 5 mm/min) was performed in a water bath set to a constant 37°C using an Electropuls E3000 Dynamic Test Instrument (Instron, Norwood, MA). Flexural modulus was determined over the initial slope of the load-displacement plot.
Results: FRS had statistically greater flexural modulus than all other materials. Valplast and Duraflex had no significant difference and each had a flexural modulus that was statistically higher than TCS. Flexural moduli are reported in Table 1.
Conclusions: TCS material may provide the greatest comfort to patients due to its superior flexibility and low modulus.
Methods: Four flexible base denture materials were selected: Valplast (Valplast International Corp, Westbury, NY); TCS (Thermoplastic Comfort Systems Dental Inc, Signal Hill, CA); Lucitone® FRS (Dentsply, York, PA); and Duraflex (Myerson LLC, Chicago, IL). Valplast, TCS, and FRS are all nylon materials, while Duraflex is made from polypropylene. All materials were formed by one of two commercial dental laboratories by the injection process outlined by each manufacturer. Samples were initially made as a block (65x40x5 mm) as outlined by ISO 20795-1. Blocks were subsequently machined and polished into test bars (64x10x3.3mm). Bars were stored in water at 37C until tested. All samples were tested within 48-hours per the ISO. A three-point flexural test (crosshead speed of 5 mm/min) was performed in a water bath set to a constant 37°C using an Electropuls E3000 Dynamic Test Instrument (Instron, Norwood, MA). Flexural modulus was determined over the initial slope of the load-displacement plot.
Results: FRS had statistically greater flexural modulus than all other materials. Valplast and Duraflex had no significant difference and each had a flexural modulus that was statistically higher than TCS. Flexural moduli are reported in Table 1.
Conclusions: TCS material may provide the greatest comfort to patients due to its superior flexibility and low modulus.