IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Repair Method on Provisional Dental Materials Flexural Properties
Objectives: Purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of repair method on flexure strengths of conventional and milled provisional crown and bridge dental materials.
Methods: Three provisional crown & bridge materials were used. Two of them were acrylic based materials (Jet Set-4, Lang & Telio CAD, Ivoclar) and one was composite based material (Protemp Plus, 3M ESPE). Ten bars with dimensions of 25×5×5 mm were prepared using customized aluminum molds for JetSet and Protemp Plus and sectioned by diamond saw for Telio CAD blocks (N=30). Specimens were fractured with a three point bending test to record initial flexural strengths using a universal testing machine (Instron 5566A) with a 10k N load cell at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Samples were divided into 2 repair groups using different surface treatment methods: 1) combination of surface roughening by coarse diamond bur and applying bonding material (Jet Set-4 Liquid, Lang or Adper Single Bond Plus Adhesive, 3M ESPE) before repair, and 2) no surface treatment before repair. Jet Set-4 mix was used to repair Telio CAD and Jet Set-4 bars. Filtek Supreme Ultra flowable composite (3M ESPE) was used to repair Protemp Plus bars. Specimens were jointed in molds with original rectangular dimensions.
After repair, all specimen groups were subjected to a three point bending test using the universal testing machine. Flexural strengths were calculated and compared to initial strengths by paired t-test using a statistical software (JMP Pro12.0).
Results: Flexural strength scores are shown in the bar chart (Graph 1). Significant decreases in flexural strengths indicated by paired-test for all materials repaired with no surface treatment (p<0.05).
Conclusions: When repairing conventional or milled provisional crown and bridge materials, utilizing surface treatment as a method of repair can achieve better flexural properties and may recover original flexural strengths.
Methods: Three provisional crown & bridge materials were used. Two of them were acrylic based materials (Jet Set-4, Lang & Telio CAD, Ivoclar) and one was composite based material (Protemp Plus, 3M ESPE). Ten bars with dimensions of 25×5×5 mm were prepared using customized aluminum molds for JetSet and Protemp Plus and sectioned by diamond saw for Telio CAD blocks (N=30). Specimens were fractured with a three point bending test to record initial flexural strengths using a universal testing machine (Instron 5566A) with a 10k N load cell at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Samples were divided into 2 repair groups using different surface treatment methods: 1) combination of surface roughening by coarse diamond bur and applying bonding material (Jet Set-4 Liquid, Lang or Adper Single Bond Plus Adhesive, 3M ESPE) before repair, and 2) no surface treatment before repair. Jet Set-4 mix was used to repair Telio CAD and Jet Set-4 bars. Filtek Supreme Ultra flowable composite (3M ESPE) was used to repair Protemp Plus bars. Specimens were jointed in molds with original rectangular dimensions.
After repair, all specimen groups were subjected to a three point bending test using the universal testing machine. Flexural strengths were calculated and compared to initial strengths by paired t-test using a statistical software (JMP Pro12.0).
Results: Flexural strength scores are shown in the bar chart (Graph 1). Significant decreases in flexural strengths indicated by paired-test for all materials repaired with no surface treatment (p<0.05).
Conclusions: When repairing conventional or milled provisional crown and bridge materials, utilizing surface treatment as a method of repair can achieve better flexural properties and may recover original flexural strengths.
2625392_File000000.jpg