Impact strength and fracture morphology of denture acrylic resins

Fernanda Faot, DDS,a Marcelo Almeida Costa, DDS,b Altair A. Del Bel Cury, PhD,c
and Renata C. M. Rodrigues Garcia, PhDd
School of Dentistry, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Statement of problem. Microwave-polymerization cycles may affect the impact strength and fracture morphology of denture base acrylic resin, and the microstructural effects of these processes have not been fully
determined.
Purpose. This study evaluated the impact strength and fracture morphology of denture base acrylic resins
processed by microwave energy and hot water bath.
Material and methods. Twenty specimens measuring 65 3 10 3 2.5 mm were fabricated from each of
4 acrylic resins processed according to the manufacturers recommendations: Lucitone 550 (control; 9 hours
at 748C); Onda Cryl (3 minutes at 360 W 1 4 minutes pause 1 3 minutes at 810 W); Acron MC (3 minutes
at 500 W); and Vipi Wave (20 minutes at 180 W 1 5 minutes at 540 W). The impact strength was evaluated in
an impact testing machine using the Charpy method with a load (impact action) of 3.95 J. Mean values of impact strength were compared by Tukey honestly significant difference test (a=.05). Fractures were classified as
brittle or intermediate. Fractographic analysis was performed for all fragments by angle analyses of crack propagation, and the microstructural morphology characterization was accomplished with scanning electron
microscopy (SEM). Data from the fractography analysis were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test for angles
and radius (a=.05).
Results. Significant differences (P,.001) were found in the impact strength for Vipi Wave and Acron MC
acrylic resins, which demonstrated the lowest values (0.19 6 0.04 and 0.21 6 0.02, respectively). Most fractures
were classified as brittle (Lucitone 55%; Onda Cryl 75%; Acron MC 90%; Vipi Wave 65%). Fractographic angle
analysis of brittle fractures showed no differences among acrylic resins studied; however, angle values of intermediate fractures for Onda Cryl were lower in comparison with those from Lucitone 550 and Vipi Wave
(P=.03). The SEM observations revealed that brittle fractures showed defined and organized crystallographic
planes, whereas the intermediate fractures had a disorganized appearance.
Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, it was observed that impact strength in microwave-polymerized acrylic resins varies according to the period of irradiation. Acrylic resins exhibited a high number of brittle
fractures, irrespective of the processing technique. (J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:367-73.)

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study suggests that the polymerization cycle can influence the impact strength of the
microwave acrylic resins studied.

he material most commonly used for fabricating

removable partial and complete dentures is polymethyl
methacrylate; however, this material presents limitations, particularly in terms of flexural and impact
strength.1 With advances in polymer science, new processing and activation techniques have been introduced,
such as injection-molding techniques and microwave activation, and polymers have been developed that exhibit
improved impact resistance.2-7 However, the mechanical properties of these materials, such as impact strength,

Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology.

Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology.
c
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology.
d
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology.
b

NOVEMBER 2006

are not ideal, since recurrent fractures of denture base

acrylic resins, polymerized either by hot water bath or
microwave energy, are still a reported problem.8-10
Removable prostheses are susceptible to high impact
extraoral forces, such as being accidentally dropped.11,12
As a result, stress concentration is generated, and denture base acrylic resin can initiate or propagate existent
cracks, thereby influencing the failure rate. To compensate for these problems, the ability of the material to
withstand the presence of notches and crack propagation
is an important factor affecting denture performance.9
The underlying causes for denture fracture may be
difficult to determine due to the large number of variables, including denture function, processing, and handling.13 In addition, fracture has been attributed to
porosity, residual monomer, presence of cracks, or
poor adaptation of the removable prosthesis to the
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 367

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

FAOT ET AL

Table I. Brand, processing methods, chemical composition, and manufacturer of acrylic resins
Acrylic resin

Processing method

Chemical composition

Lucitone 550

Hot water
bath 9 hr at 748C

Onda Cryl

Microwave energy
3 min/360 W 1
4 min/pause 1
3 min/810 W

Acron MC

Microwave energy
3 min/500 W

Vipi Wave

Microwave energy
20 min/180 W 1
5 min/540 W

Powder: methyl methacrylate

(methyl-n-butyl) co-polymer,
benzoyl peroxide, mineral
pigments.
Liquid: methyl methacrylate,
EGDMA as cross-linking
agent, hydroquinone.
Powder: methyl methacrylate
co-polymer, ethacrylate,
dibutyl paleoteodine,
benzoyl peroxide.
Liquid: methyl methacrylate,
topanol, EGDMA as
cross-linking agent.
Powder: polymethylmethacrylateethylacrylate co-polymer.
Liquid: methyl methacrylate,
N-dimethyl, P-toluidine.
Powder: methyl methacrylate
co-polymer, butyl
methacrylate, benzoyl
peroxide, non-toxic pigments.
Liquid: methyl methacrylate,
DEGDMA as cross-linking agent.

Manufacturer

Batch no.

Dentsply Intl, York, Pa

36898/37375

Artigos Odontologicos
Classico Ltd,
Sao Paulo, Brazil

GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan

0211122

Vipi Industria e Comercio de

Produtos Odontologicos
Ltd, Pirassununga, Brazil

3592/3301

EGDMA, Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate; DEGDMA, diethylene glycol dimethacrylate.

*Manufacturer does not provide batch numbers.

residual ridge.11,12 Therefore, studies on morphology

and microstructural behavior,14-16 surface defects,17
and fracture initiation sites18 may help to identify the
cause of the fracture.
To simulate experimental fractures, impact tests
(either Izod or Charpy) are used to study the energy absorbed by the acrylic resin until it fractures.1,7,9,17,19,20
With the Charpy test, the specimen is supported as a
beam at both ends and struck in the middle with a
weighted pendulum. With the Izod test, the specimen
is held at one end and struck at the other end.
Although impact testing is influenced by the loading
configuration, there is good correlation between the
Charpy and Izod impact measurements.9 In addition,
several studies have used a Charpy configuration for
impact testing of acrylic resins.9,21,22
There are few reports using fractography to study
acrylic resin fractures.14,18 Although the surface morphology of these materials has been described by both
scanning23 electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy,8 the morphology and microstructure of the fracture surface have not yet been
studied. Since the microwave method reduces laboratory time5 and has been used for processing denture
base materials,7 this study aimed to investigate impact
strength by the Charpy configuration, and to verify microstructural behavior of crack initiation/propagation
368

and fracture morphology of acrylic resins, polymerized

by either microwave energy or hot water bath.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The acrylic resins used in this study are listed in
Table I. Eighty rectangular specimens measuring 65 mm
in length, 10 mm in height, and 2.5 mm in thickness
were prepared for each acrylic resin according to the
manufacturers recommendations. Metal master patterns were individually invested with high-viscosity silicone (Silon IPS; Dentsply, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and
used to fabricate the specimens. Patterns were invested
with Type III dental stone (Herodent Soli-Rock;
Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)24 in metal dental flasks
(Uraby; DLC, Sao Paulo, Brazil) or plastic flasks (Onda
Cryl; Artigos Odontologicos Classico Ltd, Sao Paulo,
Brazil), according to the acrylic resin processing
technique.
Denture base acrylic resins were mixed according to
the manufacturers instructions and packed into silicone
molds when the materials reached the dough stage.
Microwave acrylic resin specimens were polymerized in
an oven (Continental AW-42, 2450-Hz frequency/
900-W maximum potency; Bosch Eletrodomesticos,
Manaus, Brazil), according to the manufacturers directions. Specimens polymerized by hot water bath were
VOLUME 96 NUMBER 5

FAOT ET AL

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table II. Results of 1-way ANOVA for impact strength

of acrylic resins

Treatments
Within
Total

df

Sum of
squares

Mean
square

3
76
79

4.80
11.73
16.53

1.60
0.15

10.37

,.001

Table III. Mean values and SDs of the Charpy impact

strength test (J) and types of fracture (n=20)
Type of fractures
Acrylic resin

Fig. 1. Angular analysis from 2 fragments of Lucitone 550 after impact test. Angles A and B represent crack propagation
angles from fracture point of origin in fragment A and B,
respectively.

considered to be the control, and were processed in an

automatic polymerization unit (Termotron P-100;
Termotron Equipamentos, Piracicaba, Brazil) at 748C
for 9 hours.
Next, all flasks were allowed to bench cool for 2
hours. Specimens were deflasked, and each specimen
was trimmed and finished using abrasive papers (400-,
600-, and 1200-grit, Carbimet; Buehler, Lake Bluff,
Ill) in a polishing machine (Model APL-4; Arotec, Sao
Paulo, Brazil) and stored in distilled water at 378C 6
18C for 48 6 2 hours prior to testing.
The impact strength was evaluated using the Charpy
method,5,7,9 for which the specimens were horizontally
positioned with a distance of 65 mm between the 2 fixed
supports. The test was performed at room temperature
in an impact testing machine (Otto Wolpert-Werke
GmbH, Ludwigshafen, Germany), and the specimens
were fractured by a test pendulum with a load (impact
action) of 3.95 J. A value of 3.95 J was selected to load
the specimens, as the literature reports values ranging
from 0.5 J to 330 J.4,7,9,17,21,25-29
Fractographic analysis was made from the 2 specimen
fragments resulting from the impact test. Macroscopic
analysis was performed by visual inspection of the fractured surfaces using a stereoscopic microscope (Leica
MZ 6; Leica Geosystems, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) at
316 magnification. Fragments for each specimen were
referred to as fragment A (FA) and fragment B (FB).
During visual inspection, when FA and FB could be
repositioned at the fractured line, presenting a smooth
surface, the fractures were classified as brittle. Those
presenting plastic deformation, exhibiting rough and
jagged surfaces, were recorded as intermediate (ductileto-brittle transition) fractures.
Quantitative analysis was performed to determine the
angles of crack propagation generated in the direction of
the applied load. Each fragment was sectioned 5 mm
from the edge of the fracture, under water cooling to
NOVEMBER 2006

Lucitone 550
Onda Cryl
Acron MC
Vipi Wave

Mean (J)
a

0.24
0.24a
0.21b
0.19b

SD

Brittle

Intermediate

0.04
0.04
0.02
0.04

11
15
18
13

9
5
2
1

Mean values followed by different lowercase letters are statistically different

(P,.05).

prevent overheating, using a diamond-coated disc at

200 rpm in a high-speed cutter (Isomet 1000; Buehler,
Lake Bluff, Ill). To perform angle analysis of the crack
plane propagation, images of both sides of the fractured
specimens were recorded with a digital color camera
(SCC-130A model; Samsung, Seoul, Korea) at 340
magnification and analyzed with design software
(AutoCAD R14; Autodesk, Inc, San Rafael, Calif).
The fractures were characterized according to the
crack propagation angles from the fracture radius point
of origin to each side of the fractured surface. These
measurements were referred to as Angle A and Angle
B (Fig. 1). An image of these angles was generated by
the same method as previously described, and the angles
were measured using the angle tool of the software. All
fragments from both polymerization cycles were subsequently submitted to SEM (LEO 435VP; Carl Zeiss
SMT, Oberkochen, Germany) to verify microstructural
behavior and fracture morphology.
The impact strength data were subjected to variance
homogeneity tests and a 1-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Mean impact strength values were compared
using the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD)
test (a=.05). Fractography analysis data were submitted
to the Kruskal-Wallis test (a=.05).

RESULTS
The 1-way ANOVA results for impact strength are
presented in Table II. Significant differences were found
for the acrylic resins tested (P,.001). Mean values and
SDs of the energy absorbed by the specimens at the
moment of fracture, as well as the types of fracture,
are presented in Table III. Results from the Tukey
HSD test showed that the impact strength value was
369

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

FAOT ET AL

Fig. 2. SEM of brittle fractures in acrylic resins studied (original magnification 31000). A, Lucitone 550. B, Onda Cryl. C, Vipi
Wave. D, Acron MC. Arrows show plane, compact, and organized surface in A, B, and C. Arrows in D show high number of
grooves in irregular surface.

Fig. 3. SEM of intermediate fractures in acrylic resins studied (original magnification 31000). A, Lucitone 550. B, Onda Cryl. C,
Vipi Wave. D, Acron MC. Arrows show irregular and disorganized surface with typical jagged regions in A, B, and C. Arrows in
D show presence of crazing, revealing high plastic deformation.

370

VOLUME 96 NUMBER 5

FAOT ET AL

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Table IV. Median values for angles A and B (degrees),

and radius (R) for brittle and intermediate fractures,
according to acrylic resins studied
Fracture types

Acrylic resins

Angle A

Angle B

Brittle

Lucitone 550
Onda Cryl
Acron MC
Vipi Wave

44.55a
44.16a
44.76a
45.17a
1.78
.620
59.16a
56.13b
53.14*
60.49a
7.80
.0347

46.06a
45.15a
45.70a
45.84a
5.64
.131
59.71a
54.59b
53.33*
58.33a
8.10
.0285

75.40a
74.38a
74.26a
74.26a
3.09
.379
75.97a
75.08a
74.10*
75.96a
5.07
.164

H (Kruskal-Wallis)
P value
Intermediate

H (Kruskal-Wallis)
P value

Lucitone 550
Onda Cryl
Acron MC
Vipi Wave

Angle values followed by different lowercase letters are statistically different

(P,.05).
*Acron MC specimens were excluded from comparison testing.

significantly lower for Vipi Wave and Acron MC acrylic

resins (P=.04).
Visual inspection revealed that most fractures were
brittle for the acrylic resins studied. The SEM microscopy showed that brittle fractures exhibited well-defined, flat, compact, and organized surface fractures
(Fig. 2, A, B, and C), whereas intermediate fractures
presented disorganized and jagged surfaces (Fig. 3, A,
B, and C). However, both types of fractures in Acron
MC presented irregular surface patterns (Fig. 2, D,
and Fig. 3, D) when compared to the other resins,
with a high number of grooves in the brittle fractures
and presence of crazing in the intermediate fractures.
Median values for Angle A and Angle B and the radius
values (R) for brittle and intermediate fractures are presented in Table IV. Since only 2 of the Acron MC specimens exhibited intermediate fracture, these specimens
were excluded from the comparison test. The KruskalWallis test revealed no significant differences for
brittle fractures (Table IV). However, Onda Cryl resin
exhibited significant differences (P=.03) in Angles A
and B for intermediate fractures, in comparison to
Lucitone 550 and Vipi Wave.

DISCUSSION
This study investigated the impact strength properties and fractographic analysis of 3 microwave-polymerized resins and 1 hot water bathpolymerized acrylic
resin. The impact resistance represents the total energy
absorbed by a material before it fractures, when struck
by a sudden blow from an impact instrument with a
weighted pendulum.10 The advantage of the impact
strength test to compare denture base resins is that it is
a simple test and allows the intrinsic properties of fractured material to be analyzed by determining the crack
propagation angles.15,16
NOVEMBER 2006

According to Craig and Powers,10 the Charpy impact

strength of unnotched specimen values must be approximately 0.26 J for a conventional heat-polymerized denture acrylic resin. In this study, Lucitone 550 and Onda
Cryl resins demonstrated similar values of 0.24 J.
However, it is difficult to compare these data with those
of other studies,1,4-7,9,17,19,20,27,28 probably due to dissimilar research protocols that vary in terms of specimen
dimensions, presence of notches, and notch geometry,
span length, and type of test (Charpy or Izod). Factors
such as acrylic resin chemical compositions and the times
and types of polymerization and microwave power used
in the experiments must also be considered, as they are
directly responsible for interchain force and polymer
chain arrangements.3,5
Comparisons of impact strength values among acrylic
resins showed that Vipi Wave and Acron MC specimens
presented the lowest values. This result may be attributable to the fact that Vipi Wave was processed for a longer
time at a lower temperature, according to the protocol
used by Azzarri et al.7 Although the polymerization cycle of Vipi Wave includes a final period at high temperature, it is first processed for a longer period (20 minutes)
at a lower wattage (180 W) in comparison with the
others resins studied, and this may have impacted the results. However, Acron MC was processed at short and
high wattage, which could generate shorter and weaker
polymer chains.
Another hypothesis to explain the lowest impact
strength value presented by Vipi Wave may be related
to the type and concentration of the cross-linking agent
in its chemical composition, according to Caycik and
Jagger.27 These authors studied the influence of the
cross-linking agent on the mechanical properties of
acrylic resin and found an improvement in impact
strength with the use of 10% cross-linking agent added
to the monomer, but the impact strength decreased progressively with higher concentrations. The manufacturer indicates that Vipi Wave resin contains diethylene
glycol dimethacrylate (DEGDMA) as a cross-linking
agent, but the manufacturer does not disclose the concentration of the cross-linking agent. Although there
is no information regarding the cross-linking agent in
Acron MC, both Lucitone 550 and Onda Cryl contain
ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA). Therefore,
aside from the differences in cross-linking agents used
in the acrylic resins studied, it is possible that the concentration of DEGDMA in the Vipi Wave is not ideal, resulting in weaker polymeric chains for this material.
Regarding fracture morphology, the number of brittle
fractures was higher than that of intermediate fractures for
all acrylic resins studied (Table II). It is important to note
that Acron MC showed a lower number of intermediate
fractures (10%, 2/20), perhaps because this resin suffers
little plastic deformation, and probably absorbs less energy
during the impact strength test.
371

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

The high number of brittle fractures found in this study

is also typical of other extensively cross-linked polymers.5
Moreover, impact tests are performed at a high speed, and
this influences the deformation mechanism in the acrylic
resin and the cracking behavior (initiation and propagation).9 In addition, the percentage of fracture types found
in this study is also in agreement with polymer fracture
surface parameters and characteristics, as polymers can
exhibit primarily brittle fractures.14-16
Analysis of fractured surfaces by SEM showed that the
microstructural behavior of brittle (Fig. 2, A, B) and intermediate (Fig. 3, A, B) fractures in Lucitone and Onda Cryl
resins was similar. Acron MC resin showed an intermediate model of crystallographic plane configurations for
both fracture types (Fig. 2, D, and Fig. 3, D). The Vipi
Wave resin (Fig. 2, C, and Fig. 3, C) showed poorly
defined crystallographic planes with a certain degree of
disorganization, and these fracture surfaces were different
from those of the other resins. Although irregularities
could be seen in each acrylic resin fracture, a common
finding was that a granular microstructure was clearly
distinguishable, demonstrating that acrylic resin fails by
transgranular or transcrystalline fracture.23
Comparisons between angles and radius showed no
significant differences for brittle fractures in all acrylic
resins. However, significant differences were found for
Angle A and Angle B in the intermediate fractures of
Onda Cryl (Table IV). The lowest crack propagation
angles probably indicate that the length of these cracks
is shorter than that found in the fractures of the other
acrylic resins, demonstrating that this acrylic resin has
a tendency to greater stress concentration in this region
of the specimen after the fracture. This situation is clinically favorable when the material performance is analyzed, signifying that Onda Cryl resin is likely better
able to withstand abrupt forces when plastic deformation occurs.
The results from impact test and fractographic analyses indicate that differences observed can be attributed
to the method of polymerization. Also, the acrylic resin
composition may have influenced the results. However,
the composition of Acron MC was not provided by the
manufacturer. Therefore, the influence of the composition of Acron MC could not be considered.
Considering that the dimensional stability of removable prostheses can be affected by factors such as
polymerization cycle, crack propagation, and fracture,
identifying the origin of stress absorption in the denture
base acrylic resin and its implications in microstructural
morphology may contribute to the understanding of
material failure.

CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded
that the impact strength of the acrylic resins polymerized
372

FAOT ET AL

by microwave energy can be affected by longer periods

of microwave irradiation. Irrespective of the polymerization method, the acrylic resins showed a high degree of
brittleness.

REFERENCES
1. Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Allen SM, Harrison A. An investigation into the
transverse and impact strength of high strength denture base acrylic
resins. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:263-7.
2. Phoenix RD, Mansueto MA, Ackerman NA, Jones RE. Evaluation of mechanical and thermal properties of commonly used denture base resins.
J Prosthodont 2004;13:17-27.
3. Jacob J, Chia LH, Boey FY. Microwave polymerization of poly(methyl
acrylate): conversion studies at variable power. J Appl Polymer Sci
1997;63:787-97.
4. Blagojevic V, Murphy VM. Microwave polymerization of denture base
materials. A comparative study. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:804-8.
5. Memon MS, Yunus N, Razak AA. Some mechanical properties of a highly
cross-linked, microwave-polymerized, injection-molded denture base
polymer. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:214-8.
6. Polyzois GL, Tarantili PA, Frangou MJ, Andreopoulos AG. Fracture force,
deflection at fracture, and toughness of repaired denture resin subjected
to microwave polymerization or reinforced with wire or glass fiber. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:613-9.
7. Azzarri MJ, Cortizo MS, Alessandrini JL. Effect of the curing conditions on
the properties of an acrylic denture base resin microwave-polymerised.
J Dent 2003;31:463-8.
8. Lai CP, Tsai MH, Chen M, Chang HS, Tay HH. Morphology and properties
of denture acrylic resins cured by microwave energy and conventional
water bath. Dent Mater 2004;20:133-41.
9. Zappini G, Kammann A, Wachter W. Comparison of fracture tests of
denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:578-85.
10. Craig R, Powers JM. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed. St Louis:
Elsevier; 2002. p. 640-5.
11. Beyli MS, von Fraunhofer JA. An analysis of causes of fracture of acrylic
resin dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46:238-41.
12. Darbar UR, Huggett R, Harrison A. Denture fracturea survey. Br Dent J
1994;176:342-5.
13. Franklin P, Wood DJ, Bubb NL. Reinforcement of poly (methyl methacrylate) denture base with glass flake. Dent Mater 2005;21:365-70.
14. Merrett K, Cornelius RM, McClung WG, Unsworth LD, Sheardown H.
Surface analysis methods for characterizing polymeric biomaterials.
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2002;13:593-621.
15. Callister WD Jr. Materials science and engineering: an introduction. 7th
ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 232-4, 524-33.
16. Nimmer R. Impact loading. In: Reinhart TJ, editor. Engineered materials
handbook. Vol. 2. Engineering plastics. Metals Park (OH): ASM International; 1988. p. 679-700.
17. Robinson JG, McCabe JF. Impact strength of acrylic resin denture base
materials with surface defects. Dent Mater 1993;9:355-60.
18. Mecholsky JJ Jr. Fractography: determining the sites of fracture initiation.
Dent Mater 1995;11:113-6.
19. Oku JI. Impact properties of acrylic denture base resin. 2. Effect of temperature and residual monomer on impact characteristics. Dent Mater J 1989;
8:186-93.
20. Rodford RA. Further development and evaluation of high impact strength
denture base materials. J Dent 1990;18:151-7.
21. Uzun G, Hersek N, Tincer T. Effect of five woven fiber reinforcements on
the impact and transverse strength of a denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent
1999;81:616-20.
22. Karacaer O, Polat TN, Tezvergil A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The effect of
length and concentration of glass fibers on the mechanical properties of
an injection- and a compression- molded denture base polymer. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;90:385-93.
23. Kusy RP, Turner DT. Fractography of poly(methyl methacrylates). J Biomed
Mater Res 1975;9:89-98.
24. Del Bel Cury AA, Rached RN, Ganzarolli SM. Microwave-cured acrylic
resins and silicone-gypsum moulding technique. J Oral Rehabil 2001;
28:433-8.
25. Isik G, Harrison A. Effect of deep-freezing on some properties of acrylic
resin. Acta Odontol Scand 2005;63:158-62.

VOLUME 96 NUMBER 5

FAOT ET AL

26. Rahamneh A, Jagger DC, Harrison A. The effect of the addition of different
fibres on the transverse and impact strength of acrylic resin denture base
material. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2003;11:75-81.
27. Caycik S, Jagger RG. The effect of cross-linking chain length on mechanical properties of a dough-molded poly(methylmethacrylate) resin. Dent
Mater 1992;8:153-7.
28. Price CA. The effect of cross-linking agents on the impact resistance of a
linear poly (methyl methacrylate) denture-base polymer. J Dent Res 1986;
65:987-92.
29. Jagger D, Harrison A, Vowles R, Jagger R. The effect of the addition of surface treated chopped and continuous poly (methyl methacrylate) fibres on
some properties of acrylic resin. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:865-72.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

Reprint requests to:

DR RENATA CUNHA MATHEUS RODRIGUES GARCIA
DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS AND PERIODONTOLOGY
SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY OF PIRACICABA
UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS/UNICAMP
AV LIMEIRA, 901
PIRACICABA
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, 13414-903
FAX: 00-55-193412-5250
E-MAIL: regarcia@fop.unicamp.br
0022-3913/$32.00
Copyright 2006 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.001

NOVEMBER 2006

373