Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2018, vol. 27, nr 4, April, p. 477–480

doi: 10.17219/acem/77082

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

The bond shear strength of methacrylate materials used to reduce dental and alveolar undercuts

Włodzimierz Więckiewicz1,A,E,F, Marcin Kasiak1,A,B,D, Natalia Grychowska1,C,D,E, Joanna Smardz1,C,D,E, Mariusz Pryliński2,A,B,E

1 Department of Dental Prosthetics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Center for Dental Techniques and Technologies at the Department of Biomaterials and Experimental Dentistry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland

Abstract

Background. The reduction of dental and alveolar undercuts on plaster models is an important issue in the process of planning partial and complete prostheses. In recent years, new materials such as methacrylate resins that can be used to reduce undercuts have emerged. Their great advantage is high temperature insensitivity and relatively high ease of use.
Objectives. The study aimed at determining the factors that affect the shear bond strength, and which material can be better used at the laboratory stage of preparing the plaster model to facilitate the denture bearing area and reduce the traumatizing impact of the prosthesis.
Material and Methods. In the study, 2 composite materials Block-Out Gel LC (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and LC Block-Out Resin (Ultradent Products Inc., South Jordan, USA) were used for tests on the Tewerock and Stodent plaster. Specimens consisted of 20 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm plaster blocks as a base, and composite cylinders of 3 mm diameter and 5 mm height, attached to the blocks. The base of the sample was combined with a composite cylinder in the Individo Light Box halogen lamp (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany). A total of 120 samples were studied. The shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed using the Hounsfield H5KS model HTE S/N D83281 fitted with a 5.000-N head using a cutting knife speed of 5 mm/ min.
Results. LC Block-Out Resin and Block-Out Gel LC materials deposited on class III plaster and polymerized at temperatures of up to 100°C had the best SBS (5.59 MPa and 4.0 MPa, respectively). Samples made of LC Block-Out Resin and class IV plaster showed no statistically significant differences between all the groups. Additional polymerization under 2.4 bar was the most effective in improving SBS among Block-Out Gel LC and class IV plaster samples.
Conclusion. The results of the studies show that both the plaster type and the polymerization process have a significant effect on the SBS of light-cured methacrylate material to plaster.

Key words

shear bond strength, composite materials, dental and alveolar undercuts, undercuts reduction, methacrylate resins

References (16)

  1. Ivanhoe JR, Cibirka RM, Parr GR. Treating the modern complete denture patient: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:631–635.
  2. Lechner SK, Champion H, Tong TK. Complete denture problem solving: A survey. Aust Dent J. 1995;40:377–380.
  3. Barwacz CA, Fakhry A. Use of a vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) indicator material to block out proximal undercuts during fabrication of fixed provisional restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;107(2):132–133.
  4. Keys LG, Alarcon EK. Simplified technique for blocking out undercuts during direct overdenture matrix attachment. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(1):111.
  5. Mamoun J. Preparing fixed partial denture abutments such that they provide a path of placement free of undercuts. Gen Dent. 2012;60(6):519–25.
  6. Marghalani TY. Frequency of undercuts and favorable path of insertion in abutments prepared for fixed dental prostheses by preclinical dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):564–569.
  7. Lang BR. A review of traditional therapies in complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72:538–542.
  8. Hummert TW, Kaiser DA. Blockout technique for impressions of teeth with increased open gingival embrasures. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82(1): 100–102.
  9. Samet N, Bundy M, Kleinlener M. A systematic approach for removable partial denture design. Gen Dent. 2008;56(6):526–531.
  10. Auluck A, Desai R. Accidental swallowing of a prosthesis. Dent Update. 2008;35(8):577–579.
  11. Tsuchida F, Suminaga Y, Takishin N, Hosoi T, Maeda Y. A new retainer using magnetic attachment. Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi. 2008;52(4):559–561.
  12. Fayyaz M, Ghani F. Appropriateness of knowledge and practices of dentists relating to using clasps in removable partial dentures. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20(1):52–55.
  13. Sato Y, Shimodaira O, Kitagawa N. Systematic clinical evaluation and correction procedures for support of removable partial dentures. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(3):228–232.
  14. Tandlich M, Ekstein J, Reisman P, Shapira L. Removable prostheses may enhance marginal bone loss around dental implants: A long-term retrospective analysis. J Periodontol. 2007;78(12):2253–2259.
  15. Bassi F. Overdenture therapy and worst-case scenarios: Alternative management strategies. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(4):350–353.
  16. Koyama S, Sasaki K, Kawata T, Atsumi T, Watanabe M. Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction factors affecting the usage of removable partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(6):499–500.
© Wroclaw Medical University