Introduction

In ancient times the materials available for dental treatment were simple in nature,
few in number, and the art of application was elementary, with much disappointment often
with the final results. It seems probable that the need for superior materials and improved
restorations was recognized by those who were responsible for the early dental art, but it
remained for future generations of scientists to provide the needed refinements and
improvements, through slow evolutionary processes. As time passed and civilization
advanced with the development of biological, chemical, and physical sciences, there occurred
a slow but steady increase in both the quantity and quality of useful materials available for
restorative dental practice. Among the more valuable developments in very recent years by
contemporary scientists have been the synthetic resins that now are so important to prosthetic
and restorative dentistry.
Various polymer substitutes such as vinyl acrylic, polystyrene and acrylic styrenes have not
shown to produce dentures of greater accuracy or better performance. Polycarbonate has been
used to produce dentures with increased strength and good clinical performance but it is
injection moulded and therefore requires more complex equipment for processing.
Reinforcement of PMMA has been approached through chemical modification to produce
graft co-polymers of rubber methacrylate, known as high impact resin.
The objective of the higher impact resin is self evident, in that it absorbs greater
amount of energy at a higher strain rate before fracture, than the standard resin. Although
clinically successful, the cost of the material restricted its use.
Different mechanical reinforcements through the inclusion of metal inserts (in the
form of wires, meshes, plates), carbon fibres, glass fibres, sapphire whiskers, silica fibres,
aramid fibres, nylon fibres, ultra high modulus polyethylene fibres, PMMA fibres and beads

of polyethylene and PMMA had been studied. Effective fibre reinforcement is dependent on
many variables, including the type of the fibres, the percentage of fibres in the matrix, the
modulus and distribution of the fibres, fibre length, orientation, form, and the interfacial
bond. Small fibres can be added with relative ease. Continuous fibres can provide superior
reinforcement to small fibres, but laying the fibres down in the necessary strategic manner
can be difficult, often requiring additional processing procedures that can be labour intensive
and time consuming.

Materials and methods

Three denture base materials were selected. The materials selected were ;
1) Heat cure poly (methacrylate) denture base resin Lucitone 199 (Dentsply York
Division USA)
2) Microwave cured denture base material- Vipi Wave
3) Glass fibers
Gypsum moulds were prepared with the preformed stainless steel metal strips of standard
dimension. The mould cavities thus obtained were used for preparation of different acrylic
specimens.
Three groups were prepared which contains total 120 specimens. Each group contains 40
specimens. Out of each group 20 specimens of dimensions 65mm x 10mm x 2.5mm were
used to evaluate flexure strength. And another 20 specimens of each group with dimension
60mm x 7.5mm x 4mm were used to evaluate impact strength.
The groups were as follows :
i) Group A : 40 specimens of heat cure denture base resins (Lucitone 199).
ii) Group B : 40 specimens of microwave cured denture base resins ( Vipi Wave)
iii) Group C : 40 specimens of Glass fiber reinforced denture base resins

All the test specimens were stored in water bath at 37C+ 1 for 2 weeks and were
tested for impact strength and flexural strength using Universal Testing machine and
pendulum impact testing machine. The data obtained were statistically analyzed.
Impact Strength :
Twenty specimens of each group were stored in water bath at 37 oC for 2 weeks and were
tested for the impact strength using Pendulum Impact Tester (ATS FAAR Company, Italy).
This incorporates supports in which specimen is placed and centered, a free swinging,
weighted pendulum and a digital display to show impact energy. A pendulum of 2J testing
capacity were used. The impact speed of the pendulum was 3.46 m/s.
Transverse Strength :
Twenty specimens from each of the three study groups were selected for testing transverse
strength. The specimens were stored in water bath at 37oC for 2 weeks. After this, they were
transverse loaded to fracture at a cross head speed of 2 mm/min in the universal testing
machine (AGIS SHIMADZO, Japan). The range and accuracy of 0-100 KN/1N.

Results
IMPACT STRENGTH:
The impact strength of specimens were tested by a Charpy type pendulum impact strength
tester. The Tables-I II, & III summarizes the data on impact tests. The mean, standard
deviation and coefficient of variation were calculated for further analysis.
Group A:
The Table-IV shows the energy absorbed to break the specimens which were in the
range of 0.24-0.31 joules with a mean of 0.28 joules. The impact strength was then calculated
using the formula.

Impact strength = E/N

The range of impact strength was between 7.4 8.26 x 10 -3 joules/mm2 with a mean of 7.73
x 10-3 joules /mm2 (Table-V).
Group B:
The energy absorbed to break the specimen ranged from 0.18 0.28 Joules with the
mean of 0.20 joules (Table-IV). The range of impact strength was between 6.2 - 6.92 x 10 -3
Joules /mm2 with the mean of 6.62 x 10-3 joules/mm2.
Group C:
The energy absorbed to break the specimens which are in the range of 0.25 0.35 joules with
a mean of 0.30 joules (Table-VI). The impact strength was then calculated using the formula.
TABLE - I
IMPACT STRENGTH OF PMMA
GROUP A (LUCITONE 199)
Sl.No.

Energy Absorbed to break the

specimen (Joules)

Impact strength (Joules/mm2) (N-mm)

0.258

0.285

7.4x 10-3
7.58 x 10-3

3
4

0.282
0.258

7.54 x 10-3
7.47 x 10-3

0.298

0.301

7.73 x 10-3
7.82 x 10-3

0.287

0.314

0.256

10

0.291

7.61 x 10-3
8.26 x 10-3
7.92 x 10-3
7.96 x 10-3

TABLE - II
IMPACT STRENGTH OF PMMA
GROUP B (VIPI WAVE)
Sl.No.

Energy Absorbed to break the

specimen (Joules)

0.186

0.191

0.201

0.230

0.236

0.281

0.281

0. 232

0.202

10

0.279
TABLE - III

Impact strength (Joules/mm2) (N-mm)

6.2 x 10-3
6.3 x 10-3
6.43 x 10-3
6.72 x 10-3
6.8 x 10-3
6.96 x 10-3
6.98 x 10-3
6.78 x 10-3
6.41 x 10-3
6.92 x 10-3

IMPACT STRENGTH OF PMMA

GROUP C (FIBRE REINFORCED)
Sl.No.
Energy Absorbed to break the
specimen (Joules)

Impact strength (Joules/mm2) (Nmm)

0.312

0.258

7.8 x 10-3
7.5 x 10-3

0.323

0.327

0.310

0.261

0.316

0.341

0.351

10

0.318

8.29 x 10-3
8.32 x 10-3
7.9 x 10-3
8.51x 10-3
8.2 x 10-3
7.4 x 10-3
8.5 x 10-3
7.9 x 10-3

Table IV
ENERGY ABSORBED (JOULES) TO FRACTURE THE SPECIMENS IN THREE
STUDY GROUPS
Energy absorbed (Joules)

Difference between groups

GROUPS

Range

Mean

SD

CV (%)

0.24-0.31

0.28

0.02

7.1

0.18-0.28

0.25-0.35

0.20

0.30

0.02

0.03

10

10

Groups
compared
A-B

Mean
difference
0.07

Significance*

A-C

-0.02

0.05

B-A

-0.073

0.00

B-C

-0.09

0.00

C-A

0.025

0.05

C-B

0.098

0.00

0.00

One way ANOVA F = 35.33 P = 0.00

Table V
IMPACT STRENGHT (JOULES\mm2) OF THREE STUDY GROUPS
Impact strength (Joules\mm2)
GROUPS
A

Difference between groups

Range

Mean

SD

7.42-8.2 x 10-3

7.73 x 103

0.26

6.62 x 103

0.27

8.03 x 103

0.39

6.2-6.92 x 10-3

7.4-8.5 x 10-3

One way ANOVA F = 55.89 P = 0.00

CV
(%)
3.3

4.0

4.8

Groups
compared
A-B

Mean
difference
1.11

Significa
nce*
0.00

A-C

-0.30

0.042

B-A

-1.11

0.00

B-C

-1.41

0.00

C-A

0.301

0.042

C-B

0.1.41

0.00

TABLE- VI
TRANSVERSE STRENGTH OF PMMA

GROUP C (Fibre Reinforced)

Sl.No.
Load (Kg)

Transverse Strength (MPa)

29.87

112.55

30.26

116.23

32.28

118.96

30.32

115.15

33.21

120.32

30.26

116.17

29.89

114.29

29.89

114.23

33.12

119.32

10

30.54

117.15

Discussion
In the present study, 2% weight of 6 mm glass fibre was used in loose form and in
random orientation to reinforcement of Lucitone 199 heat cured denture base resin. The short
fibre length represented a convenient size for manipulation and included into acrylic resin at
dough stage.33 Fibre loading of 2 % by weight were selected because it significantly
increases the impact strength and flexure strength as compared to 1% by weight of glass
fibre. The early study revealed that any greater fibre (>3%) represented a large volume of
material to be wetted by the monomer during mixing and produced a dry, friable dough, that
was difficult to pack. The impact strength and flexural strength of heat cure Lucitone199,

microwave cured (Vipi-Wave) and 2% glass fibre modified Lucitone 199 denture base
materials were evaluated and compared.
Among several different types of test to measure impact strength, the pendulum
impact test and falling weight test are two major impact tests. 82The primary disadvantage
with falling weight tester is that they require a large no. of specimens and the results may not
be as repeatable as desired. The Izod and Charpy are two methods of pendulum impact test
which are most commonly used. In comparing the impact resistance of plastic materials, Izod
test has become the recognized standard for comparing the impact resistance of plastic
materials, it is fast and economic test and the tests are often performed at different
temperatures to more closely simulate the actual service conditions.52
The impact strength of denture base material depends on many factors including
material selection, geometry of the specimen, fabrication variables, stress concentrations,
position of specimen, and temperature.82 Stress concentration is the main contributor to the
impact failure in denture and include notches, scratches, depressions, sharp corners, rough
surface, grooves, holes, textured surface, sudden change in thickness, foreign particles, or gas
inclusions. The surrounding temperature also has an effect on the impact strength of material.
As the temperature increases to the glass transition temperature or higher, the impact strength
of amorphous polymer increases because molecular motion is the back bone of polymer chain
is increased enough to relieve stress concentrations. Thus the temperature can make a
material fail either in brittle or ductile manner. Plasticizer can increase the impact strength of
a polymer because they lower the glass transition temperature of the polymer and increase the
energy dissipation per unit volume. Plasticizers also decrease notch sensitivity and impede
crack propagation. Brittle polymers can be converted into high-impact polymer by addition of
rubber.

Flexural Strength:
The flexural strength of a material is a measure of stiffness and is resistance to
fracture.78 Flexural strength, is essentially a strength test of a bar supported at each end, or a
thin disk supported along a lower support circle, under a static load.86

For a bar subjected to three - point flexure (upper central loading), the mathematical
formula for computing the flexure strength is as follows.

3 pl
2 bd 2

: Flexural strength

l: The distance between the supports

b: Width of the specimen
d: Depth or thickness of the specimen
p: The maximum load at the point of fracture
Analysis of variance showed that the difference in load at fracture and corresponding
flexural strength was statistically significant (p=0.001).The sub group c 2 2% fibre reinforced
lucitone199 shows statistically significant higher flexure strength as compared to sub group
a2 Lucitone 199 and sub group b2 Vipi-wave.
An increase in the flexural strength with the incorporation of glass fibres is in
agreement with the previous studies done by Uzun, Tenser, Hersek 12Vallittu 16; Vallittu,

Lassilla, Lappalainen and Marie.67 An increase in flexural strength with incorporation of

glass fibres is due to the load shared between the matrix and glass fibres. Glass fibres have
high tensile strength thus, increasing the flexural strength. Vallittu, Lassilla and Lappalainen
54showed that an increase in the amount of fibres increase(36%) enhanced the fracture
resistance. 54
Hayden93 found that the flexural strength of acrylic resin cured by microwave energy
did not absorb as much energy before fracture as the heat cured denture base resin. Smith 94
investigated hardness, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity of seven resins cured using heat
and microwave energy and concluded that microwave curing improve the modulus of
elasticity of two resins, decrease the impact strength.
Limitation of the study is that more number of denture base resin systems and more
number of reinforcement systems can be tested. But in our study as one denture base material
was a high-impact resin, similar reinforcement effects might be expected with other highimpact resins using the same fibre system and for low-impact resins as well. It should be
noted that impact strength of acrylic denture base reinforced with glass fibres varies
according to the test condition, composition of resin, geometry of denture, fibre type, fibre
form, fibre position, fibre orientation, and fibre fraction. These factors have an important
influence on clinical performance of the dentures. Thus these factors should be considered for
further studies.

Conclusion
From the present study following conclusions were drawn:

1) The glass fibre reinforced denture base resins showed higher transverse strength as
compared to the heat cure resins (Lucitone199), microwave cured resin (Vipi Wave).
The Lucitone199 also shows higher flexure strength as compared to Vipi Wave. There
were intergroup differences in the values the groups showed statistically significant
difference in their transverse strengths.
2) The glass fibre reinforced denture base resins showed slightly higher impact strength
than the Lucitone199 and showed highly significant increase in impact strength as
compared to the microwave cure resin (Vipi Wave). The Lucitone199 shows higher
impact strength as compared to Vipi Wave.
Among the different denture base materials used in the study Glass fibre reinforced
proved to have better transverse and impact strength, followed by this is denture base resin.

The range of impact strength was between 7.4 8.51 x 10 -3 joules/mm2 with the mean of
8.03 x 10-3 joules/mm2 (Table-IX).
Table-VII shows that all the three groups differed significantly in absorbing the energy (F
value = 35.33 p value <0.001) minimum significant range test r that the energy absorbed to
fracture the specimens in Group D was significantly higher compared to that of A and B. The
energy absorbed to fracture the specimens in Group C was not significantly different from
Group D and E.
The mean energy absorbed to break the specimens of Group A was 0.28 joules, Group B was
0.20 joules and Group C was 0.30 joules.
Transverse Strength :
The transverse strength of specimens were tested by a three-point loading device affixed to a
dynamic testing machine.
The transverse strength values for each material are summarized in Table-XI and graphically
displayed in Graph-IV. The data comprise the mean values obtained together with the
standard deviation of coefficient of variation. To identify any significant differences between
the data obtained for the groups of materials tested, a one-way analysis of variance was
undertaken.

Table-X revealed that the load at fracture was highest in Group C (30.96) closely followed by
Group A which was 29.25. Analysis of variance showed that the difference in the load at
fracture exhibited by 3 groups was statistically highly significant (P<0.001). The difference in
the load at fracture between the Groups C and Group A was not statistically significant
whereas the difference between the Group C and the group B.

Group A :
The force required to fracture the specimens of DPI Conventional heat cure was in a range
of 26.62 32.28 Kg with a mean of 29.25 Kg (Table-X). The range of transverse strength
was between 90 118 MPa with the mean of 107.3 MPa (Table-XI).
Group B :
The force required to fracture the specimens ranged from 18.05 28.02 Kg with a mean of
22.18 Kg. The Table-XI shows the transverse strengths which ranges from 78.02 102.84
MPa with a mean of 86.236 MPa.
Group C :
Table-X shows the force required to fracture the specimens of Acralyn-H which ranges from
29.87 33.21 Kg with a mean of 29.53 Kg. The corresponding transverse strength values
ranged from 112.17 120.84 MPa with a mean of 116.43 MPa (Table-XI).

An analysis of the difference in transverse strength was then carried out using One Way
ANOVA (F-Test). Although the results showed that there was statistically significant
difference between each group.
Apparently, the Table-XI shows that Group C has highest transverse strength (116.43 MPa)
followed by Group A and Group B with 107.37 and 86.23 respectively. The least transverse

strength was exhibited by Group B (88.23). There was no statistically significant differences
between the groups compared.
Hence, Group C was considered superior when compared to other groups. The above analysis
revealed that higher the load or force required to fracture the specimens, greater will be the
transverse strength.
The mean and variation values of the transverse strength of Group A, B and C are presented
in Table- XI.