Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures

Karla B. Domingo, John O. Burgess, Mark S. Litaker, Michael Scott McCracken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem Implant overdentures become thinner and weaker after direct transfer of implant attachment housings. While much has been published on denture repair, these data do not directly apply to implant overdentures because the introduction of a metal housing changes the character of the repair. It is desirable to make a strong repair to avoid prosthesis fracture. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strengths of 4 different methods for chairside direct transfer of implant attachment housings. Material and methods Eighty 11.5 × 9.1 × 39 mm heat-polymerized acrylic resin blocks were processed, assessed for porosities, and polished. An 8.5 mm diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 5 mm in the center of each block. Attachment housings were set into the bases with 4 different repair materials: autopolymerized acrylic resin (APAR), light-polymerized acrylic resin (LPAR), autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (APSAH), and light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (LPSAH). Blocks were immersed in water for 30 days in an incubator. A 3-point bend test was done in a universal testing machine, and load to fracture was recorded (MPa). Results were compared with 2-way ANOVA (α=.05). Results APSAH had the highest mean flexural strength at fracture (863.1 ±87 MPa) as compared to APAR (678.4 ±72.4 MPa), LPAR (550.9 ±119.3 MPa), and LPSAH (543.2 ±100.8 MPa). A comparison among the 4 groups showed that there were significant differences in maximum flexural strength (P<.001). The mean maximum strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin groups was significantly higher than light-polymerized acrylic resin groups. Silanation increased strength significantly compared to nonsilanated groups. Conclusions The flexural strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings was significantly higher than autopolymerized acrylic resin alone, light-polymerized acrylic resin alone, or light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings. Autopolymerized acrylic resin produced stronger constructs than light-polymerized materials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)8-13
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume110
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013

Fingerprint

Acrylic Resins
Complete Denture
Light
Overlay Denture
Denture Repair
Incubators
Porosity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures. / Domingo, Karla B.; Burgess, John O.; Litaker, Mark S.; McCracken, Michael Scott.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 110, No. 1, 01.07.2013, p. 8-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Domingo, Karla B. ; Burgess, John O. ; Litaker, Mark S. ; McCracken, Michael Scott. / Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures. In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2013 ; Vol. 110, No. 1. pp. 8-13.
@article{86c7cf19660b42b9aa07a9177a51d4c4,
title = "Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures",
abstract = "Statement of problem Implant overdentures become thinner and weaker after direct transfer of implant attachment housings. While much has been published on denture repair, these data do not directly apply to implant overdentures because the introduction of a metal housing changes the character of the repair. It is desirable to make a strong repair to avoid prosthesis fracture. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strengths of 4 different methods for chairside direct transfer of implant attachment housings. Material and methods Eighty 11.5 × 9.1 × 39 mm heat-polymerized acrylic resin blocks were processed, assessed for porosities, and polished. An 8.5 mm diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 5 mm in the center of each block. Attachment housings were set into the bases with 4 different repair materials: autopolymerized acrylic resin (APAR), light-polymerized acrylic resin (LPAR), autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (APSAH), and light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (LPSAH). Blocks were immersed in water for 30 days in an incubator. A 3-point bend test was done in a universal testing machine, and load to fracture was recorded (MPa). Results were compared with 2-way ANOVA (α=.05). Results APSAH had the highest mean flexural strength at fracture (863.1 ±87 MPa) as compared to APAR (678.4 ±72.4 MPa), LPAR (550.9 ±119.3 MPa), and LPSAH (543.2 ±100.8 MPa). A comparison among the 4 groups showed that there were significant differences in maximum flexural strength (P<.001). The mean maximum strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin groups was significantly higher than light-polymerized acrylic resin groups. Silanation increased strength significantly compared to nonsilanated groups. Conclusions The flexural strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings was significantly higher than autopolymerized acrylic resin alone, light-polymerized acrylic resin alone, or light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings. Autopolymerized acrylic resin produced stronger constructs than light-polymerized materials.",
author = "Domingo, {Karla B.} and Burgess, {John O.} and Litaker, {Mark S.} and McCracken, {Michael Scott}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60332-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "8--13",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strength comparison of four techniques to secure implant attachment housings to complete dentures

AU - Domingo, Karla B.

AU - Burgess, John O.

AU - Litaker, Mark S.

AU - McCracken, Michael Scott

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Statement of problem Implant overdentures become thinner and weaker after direct transfer of implant attachment housings. While much has been published on denture repair, these data do not directly apply to implant overdentures because the introduction of a metal housing changes the character of the repair. It is desirable to make a strong repair to avoid prosthesis fracture. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strengths of 4 different methods for chairside direct transfer of implant attachment housings. Material and methods Eighty 11.5 × 9.1 × 39 mm heat-polymerized acrylic resin blocks were processed, assessed for porosities, and polished. An 8.5 mm diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 5 mm in the center of each block. Attachment housings were set into the bases with 4 different repair materials: autopolymerized acrylic resin (APAR), light-polymerized acrylic resin (LPAR), autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (APSAH), and light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (LPSAH). Blocks were immersed in water for 30 days in an incubator. A 3-point bend test was done in a universal testing machine, and load to fracture was recorded (MPa). Results were compared with 2-way ANOVA (α=.05). Results APSAH had the highest mean flexural strength at fracture (863.1 ±87 MPa) as compared to APAR (678.4 ±72.4 MPa), LPAR (550.9 ±119.3 MPa), and LPSAH (543.2 ±100.8 MPa). A comparison among the 4 groups showed that there were significant differences in maximum flexural strength (P<.001). The mean maximum strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin groups was significantly higher than light-polymerized acrylic resin groups. Silanation increased strength significantly compared to nonsilanated groups. Conclusions The flexural strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings was significantly higher than autopolymerized acrylic resin alone, light-polymerized acrylic resin alone, or light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings. Autopolymerized acrylic resin produced stronger constructs than light-polymerized materials.

AB - Statement of problem Implant overdentures become thinner and weaker after direct transfer of implant attachment housings. While much has been published on denture repair, these data do not directly apply to implant overdentures because the introduction of a metal housing changes the character of the repair. It is desirable to make a strong repair to avoid prosthesis fracture. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strengths of 4 different methods for chairside direct transfer of implant attachment housings. Material and methods Eighty 11.5 × 9.1 × 39 mm heat-polymerized acrylic resin blocks were processed, assessed for porosities, and polished. An 8.5 mm diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 5 mm in the center of each block. Attachment housings were set into the bases with 4 different repair materials: autopolymerized acrylic resin (APAR), light-polymerized acrylic resin (LPAR), autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (APSAH), and light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings (LPSAH). Blocks were immersed in water for 30 days in an incubator. A 3-point bend test was done in a universal testing machine, and load to fracture was recorded (MPa). Results were compared with 2-way ANOVA (α=.05). Results APSAH had the highest mean flexural strength at fracture (863.1 ±87 MPa) as compared to APAR (678.4 ±72.4 MPa), LPAR (550.9 ±119.3 MPa), and LPSAH (543.2 ±100.8 MPa). A comparison among the 4 groups showed that there were significant differences in maximum flexural strength (P<.001). The mean maximum strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin groups was significantly higher than light-polymerized acrylic resin groups. Silanation increased strength significantly compared to nonsilanated groups. Conclusions The flexural strength of autopolymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings was significantly higher than autopolymerized acrylic resin alone, light-polymerized acrylic resin alone, or light-polymerized acrylic resin with silanated attachment housings. Autopolymerized acrylic resin produced stronger constructs than light-polymerized materials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880282669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880282669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60332-7

DO - 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60332-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 23849608

AN - SCOPUS:84880282669

VL - 110

SP - 8

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 1

ER -