Mechanical Properties Of Provisional Restorative Materials

dc.contributor.advisorPaez de Mendoza, Carmen Y.
dc.contributor.authorShimizu Oliva, Graciela, 1976-en_US
dc.contributor.otherAndres, Carl J., 1942-
dc.contributor.otherBrown, David T.
dc.contributor.otherChu, Tien-Min Gabriel
dc.contributor.otherLevon, John A.
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-01T18:23:09Z
dc.date.available2010-12-01T18:23:09Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.degree.date2010en_US
dc.degree.disciplineSchool of Dentistryen_US
dc.degree.grantorIndiana Universityen_US
dc.degree.levelM.S.D.en_US
dc.descriptionIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)en_US
dc.description.abstractA provisional restoration must fulfill biologic, mechanical, and esthetic requirements. These prostheses should provide comfort, pulp protection, positional stability, occlusal function, hygiene access, esthetics, strength and retention. Methyl-methacrylate acrylic has assumed many appli¬cations in the field of restorative dentistry. However, the material still has deficiencies, such as polymerization shrinkage, pulpal damage associated with exothermic polymerization and susceptibility to fracture. Bis-GMA composites, Bis-acryl composites and visible light-cured urethane dimethacrylate resins have been developed to address these issues. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of provisional restorations made from composite resins (Protemp Plus, Luxatemp Solar, Radica, Protemp Crown) to those made of the traditional methacrylate resins (Jet, Snap, High Impact). Six groups of samples, two groups from methacrylate and four groups from composite based materials, were fabricated. Samples from each group were evaluated for microhardness (n=10), flexural strength and flexural modulus (n=20) according to ISO 4049, and fracture toughness (n=20) according to ISO 13586. From each of the six groups, ten samples were tested for flexural strength, flexural modulus and fracture toughness and 5 samples were tested for microhardness. These tests were done after storing at 37°C in a distilled water solution for 7 days followed by thermal cycling (2500 cycles, 5-55°C, 45 s. dwell). Identical sets of samples from each group were used as controls; these were tested after storing for 24 hours in dry conditions. The results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with material type and aging conditions as the two main variables. Significance level was set at p=0.05. For flexural strength and flexural modules, the higher values were obtained for Radica. Protemp plus (7 days) and Radica (24h) had the highest fracture toughness value. Protemp crown showed the highest surface hardness. The mechanical properties of composite resin were superior.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/2320
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.7912/C2/1457
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectProvisional Restorative Materialsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Temporaryen_US
dc.subject.meshDenture, Partial, Temporaryen_US
dc.subject.meshComposite Resins -- chemistryen_US
dc.subject.meshAcrylic Resins -- chemistryen_US
dc.subject.meshMethacrylates -- chemistryen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysisen_US
dc.titleMechanical Properties Of Provisional Restorative Materialsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Thesis Final Dr. Graciela Shimizu O 20100918.pdf
Size:
995.18 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Thesis
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.88 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: