Evaluation of the flexural strength and elastic modulus of resins used for temporary restorations reinforced with particulate glass fibre

Objective: The flexural strength and the elastic modulus of acrylic resins, Dencor, Duralay and Trim Plus II, were evaluated with and without the addition of silanised glass fibre. Materials and methods: To evaluate the flexural strength and elastic modulus, 60 test specimens were fabricated with the addition of 10% ground silanised glass fibres for the experimental group, and 60 without the incorporation of fibres, for the control group, with 20 test specimens being made of each commercial brand of resin (Dencor, Duralay and Trim Plus II) for the control group and experimental group. After the test specimens had been completed, the flexural strength and elastic modulus tests were performed in a universal testing device, using the three-point bending test. For the specimens without fibres the One-Way Analysis of Variance and the complementary Tukey test were used, and for those with fibres it was not normal, so that the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was applied. Results: For the flexural strength test, there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) between each commercial brand of resin without fibres [Duralay 84.32(+/- 8.54), Trim plus 85.39(+/- 6.74), Dencor 96.70(+/- 6.52)] and with fibres (Duralay 87.18, Trim plus 88.33, Dencor 98.10). However, for the elastic modulus, there was statistical difference (p > 0.01) between each commercial brand of resin without fibres [Duralay 2380.64 (+/- 168.60), Trim plus 2740.37(+/- 311.74), Dencor 2595.42(+/- 261.22)] and with fibres (Duralay 3750.42, Trim plus 3188.80, Dencor 3400.75). Conclusion: The result showed that the incorporation of fibre did not interfere in the flexural strength values, but it increased the values for the elastic modulus.

Evaluation of Vickers hardness of different types of acrylic denture base resins with and without glass fibre reinforcement

Objective: To evaluate the Vickers hardness of different acrylic resins for denture bases with and without the addition of glass fibres. Background: It has been suggested that different polymerisation methods, as well as the addition of glass fibre (FV) might improve the hardness of acrylic. Materials and methods: Five types of acrylic resin were tested: Vipi Wave (VW), microwave polymerisation; Vipi Flash (VF), auto-polymerisation; Lucitone (LT), QC20 (QC) and Vipi Cril (VC), conventional heat-polymerisation, all with or without glass fibre reinforcement (GFR) and distributed into 10 groups (n = 12). Specimens were then submitted to Vickers hardness testing with a 25-g load for 30 s. All data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. Results: A significant statistical difference was observed with regard to the polymerisation method and the GFR (p < 0.05). Without the GFR, the acrylic resin VC presented the highest hardness values, and VF and LT presented the lowest. In the presence of GFR, VC resin still presented the highest Vickers hardness values, and VF and QC presented the lowest. Conclusions: The acrylic resin VC and VW presented higher hardness values than VF and QC resins. Moreover, GFR increased the Vickers hardness of resins VW, VC and LT.