Microtensile Bond Strength of Different Acrylic Teeth

to High-Impact Denture Base Resins

Amanda C. Colebeck, DDS, MS,1,2 Edward A. Monaco Jr., DDS,3 Christopher R. Pusateri, DDS, MS,3 &
Elaine L. Davis, PhD4
1
Fellow, Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
2
Formerly, Resident, PG Prosthodontics, University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, Buffalo, NY
3
Clinical Assistant Professor, Restorative Dentistry, University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, Buffalo, NY
4
Professor, Oral Diagnostic Sciences, University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, Buffalo, NY

Keywords
Ridge lap; surface treatment; denture
processing; bond strength.
Correspondence
Amanda C. Colebeck, 206 Commodore
Terrace, Cheektowaga, NY 14225.
E-mail: Amanda.Colebeck@gmail.com
Contents of this article have been presented
in poster format at the American
Prosthodontic Society Annual Meeting
(Chicago, February 2013) and the Academy of
Prosthodontics Annual Meeting (Maui, April
2013). Oral presentations have been given for
the master’s dissertation of the first author
(Buffalo, April 2013) and at the John J. Sharry
research competition at the American College
of Prosthodontists Annual Session (Las
Vegas, October 2013).
This research was funded in part by a
generous grant from The Academy of
Prosthodontics.
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
Accepted March 7, 2014
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12196
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of denture base acrylic, denture tooth com-
position, and ridge-lap surface treatment on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS)
of three commercially available denture teeth and two injection denture processing
systems.
Materials and Methods: Sixteen experimental groups were formed (n = 3), accord-
ing to denture tooth surface treatment (no treatment or surface treatment recommended
by the manufacturer), denture base processing technique and acrylic (SR-Ivocap-
Ivocap Plus or Success-Lucitone 199), and tooth type-composition at bonding inter-
face (BlueLine DCL-PMMA, Portrait IPN-PMMA, Phonares II-PMMA, Phonares
II-NHC). Rectangular bar specimens with a 1 mm2 cross sectional area were fabri-
cated and subsequently thermocycled at 10,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a
15-second dwell time. Select specimens underwent μTBS testing in a universal testing
machine with a 1 kN load cell at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were analyzed
statistically by two and three-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05).
Results: Mean μTBS ranged between 56.2 ± 5.6 and 60.8 ± 5.0 N/mm2 for the
Ivocap Plus specimens and 13.3 ± 5.12 to 60.1 ± 6.0 N/mm2 for the Lucitone
199 specimens. Among the Ivocap specimens, BlueLine DCL and Phonares II NHC
had significantly higher μTBS than Portrait IPN to Ivocap Plus acrylic. There were no
statistically significant differences among Blueline, Phonares II PMMA, and Phonares
II NHC, or between Phonares II PMMA and Portrait IPN. Within the Luctione
199 specimens, there was a significantly higher μTBS for BlueLine DCL and Phonares
II NHC denture teeth with the manufacturer-recommended surface treatment when
compared to control surface. BlueLine, Portrait, and Phonares II PMMA groups
achieved significantly higher mean μTBS than the Phonares II NHC group. There
were no statistically significant differences among BlueLine, Portrait, and Phonares
II PMMA groups.
Conclusion: When evaluating the μTBS of PMMA and NHC denture teeth to base
resins, a stronger bond was achieved using materials produced by the same manufac-
turer. Within the Luctione 199 specimens, the Phonares II NHC group demonstrated
significantly lower bond strength than other specimens, suggesting that gross ridge-lap
reduction of NHC denture teeth is not recommended if a base acrylic by a different
manufacturer from the tooth is going to be used.

Debonding of acrylic teeth from the denture base remains a
common problem in prosthodontic practice, involving 22% to
30% of repairs.1 With the increased use of implants in support
of oral prostheses, denture tooth debonding may become an
even greater clinical challenge due to increased biting forces.2
In addition, inadequate acrylic resin thickness as a result of bar
and clip attachments or large implant-supporting frameworks
can lead to debonding and fractures.3
The majority of studies examining denture tooth to acrylic
bond strength have used simple shear or tensile forces.4 The EN
ISO 22112 bond strength test is designed as a pass or fail test
in which denture teeth that have a cohesive mode of fracture

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 

C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists 1
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base Colebeck et al

Table 1 Experimental groups

Denture base product/ Injection method Denture tooth product Surface treatment Groupa

Luctione 199/Success Blueline DCL Glaze removed, polished CBL

- Portrait IPN Glaze removed, polished CPL
- Phonares II PMMA Glaze removed, polished CPhL
- Phonares II NHC Glaze and PMMA removed, polished CPhNL
- BlueLine DCL Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EBL
- Portrait IPN Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EPL
- Phonares II PMMA Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EPhL
- Phonares II NHC Glaze and PMMA removed, roughened, monomer EPhNL
SR-Ivocap Plus/Ivocap Blueline DCL Glaze removed, polished CBI
- Portrait IPN Glaze removed, polished CPI
- Phonares II PMMA Glaze removed, polished CPhI
- Phonares II NHC Glaze and PMMA removed, polished CPhNI
- BlueLine DCL Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EBI
- Portrait IPN Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EPI
- Phonares II PMMA Glaze removed, roughened, monomer EPhI
- Phonares II NHC Glaze and PMMA removed, roughened, monomer EPhNI

a
C, Control group; E, Experimental group; B, Blueline; P, Portrait; Ph, Phonares II PMMA; PhN, Phonares II NHC; L, Lucitone 199; I, Ivocap.

pass the test.5 This test does not account for the surface area
of the ridge-lap surface bonded to the denture acrylic, and it is
therefore difficult to accurately compare bond strengths among
different specimens. In contrast, the microtensile bond strength
(μTBS) test provides the ability to control the bonded surface
area, allowing each specimen to have a more uniform distribu-
tion of interfacial stresses.6 Two studies have been published
detailing the use of this technique with acrylic denture teeth
and base materials.7,8
The most recent generation of denture teeth, nano-hybrid
composite (NHC), is a mixture consisting of a urethane
dimethacrylate matrix and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
clusters embedded in the structure. This material is layered
with highly cross-linked PMMA to create a denture tooth that
is highly esthetic on the superficial structure but supposedly
reliable in bonding at the ridge-lap surface (SR Phonares II,
Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). While this design is
acceptable in many cases, there are times, especially in implant
prosthetics, that denture teeth must be drastically reduced at the
ridge-lap surface to fit the tooth in the space available, resulting
in exposure of the NHC material at the bonding surface of the
tooth. No published studies have reported on the bond strength
of denture base acrylic to NHC material.
Previous studies using mechanical and chemical preparation
of the denture tooth ridge-lap surface in attempts to improve
bond strength have produced mixed results.3 Spratley9 con-
cluded that grinding on the ridge laps of denture teeth or appli-
cation of monomer on the ridge laps prior to acrylic packing did
not make a significant difference in bond strength. Addition-
ally, Morrow et al10 determined that application of monomer
on unmodified ridge laps decreased bond strength. Other in-
vestigators reported improved bond strengths when teeth were
treated with monomer and mechanically modified on the ridge
lap.11,12 The contradiction of results is likely due in part to
the differences in denture teeth, acrylic resin, and experimental
technique used in preparing and testing specimens.
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effect of
denture base polymer type, denture tooth composition, and
ridge-lap surface treatment on the μTBS of three commer-
cially available denture teeth (highly cross-linked PMMA and
NHC) and two injection denture processing systems with their
corresponding base acrylics. The null hypothesis was based on
the assumption that there would be no significant difference in
μTBS of the different denture teeth to the two denture base
resins in any of the treatment groups.
Materials and methods
This investigation evaluated the μTBS of two heat-polymerized
high-impact denture base resins and injection-processing sys-
tems (SR-Ivocap Plus resin/Ivocap, batch No. 69797, Ivoclar
Vivadent; Lucitone 199 resin/Success, batch No. 120524,
Dentsply International, York, PA), to three highly cross-linked
acrylic denture teeth (Portrait IPN, Dentsply International;
BlueLine DCL, Ivoclar Vivadent; Phonares II, Ivoclar Vi-
vadent). Phonares II denture teeth were sectioned and tested
at the PMMA surface (Phonares II PMMA) and composite
surface (Phonares II NHC) in separate groups. A total of 48
mandibular first molar denture teeth were divided into eight
groups of three teeth (n = 3) for each of the two acrylic resins,
making 16 groups in total (Table 1).
Initially, all teeth were roughened on their occlusal surface
with a carbide bur (H251.11.060, Brasseler USA, Savannah,
GA) and embedded in clear autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Or-
tho Resin; Dentsply International) contained within a 25 mm
diameter polypropylene mounting cup (Struers, Ballerup, Den-
mark). Phonares II PMMA teeth (groups CPhI, CPhL, EPhI,
and EPhL) were sectioned with a diamond disk (911H.11.180,
Brasseler USA) on a slow-speed handpiece to expose only
PMMA at the bonding surface prior to embedding the oc-
clusal portion in acrylic resin. Phonares II NHC teeth (groups
CPhNL, CPhNI, EPhNL, and EPhNI) were sectioned to expose

2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 

C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Colebeck et al
Figure 1 Phonares II denture tooth intact (left-hand side) and sectioned (right-hand side) with UV LED flashlight illumination demonstrating difference
in composite and PMMA fluorescence.
Figure 2 Resin-tooth-wax specimens.
only the NHC layer at the bonding surface prior to embedding
in acrylic resin. The sectioned teeth were examined with a UV
LED flashlight (Inova X5 UV Flashlight, Nite Ize Inc., Boulder,
CO) at 395 nm wavelength to differentiate the composite sur-
face (greater amount of fluorescence) from the PMMA surface
(Fig 1). All acrylic denture teeth were flattened at the exposed
bonding surface with 400-, 600-, and 800-grit silicon carbide
Figure 4 Microtensile specimen preparation with a high precision saw.
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 
C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base
Figure 3 Specimens invested in flask with sprues for injection process-
ing prior to full flasking.
paper under water cooling in a polishing machine (MetLab
Corp., Niagara Falls, NY). Teeth in all groups were placed in
an ultrasonic unit for 10 minutes with distilled water and then
air dried at room temperature.
Customary denture processing methods were used to pro-
cess the denture base. Baseplate wax (TruWax, Dentsply In-
ternational) was warmed and compressed into a polypropylene
3
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base
mounting cup followed by placement of the tooth (embedded in
clear acrylic resin) against the wax surface so the bonding sur-
face of the tooth was in contact with the wax (Fig 2). Specimens
were inspected under magnification to ensure a complete seal
between the clear acrylic resin and wax. The resin-tooth-wax
specimens were invested in type III dental stone (Quickstone,
Whip Mix Corp., Louisville, KY) in a flask corresponding to
the processing technique indicated (Ivocap or Success), and
wax sprues were formed prior to full flasking (Fig 3). Tinfoil
substitute (Separating Fluid, Ivoclar Vivadent) was used as a
separating medium. Flasks were placed in a clean boil-out tank
(KaVo America Corp., Charlotte, NC) at 90°C for 5 minutes
and then opened. Excess wax was removed, and a second 5-
minute boil-out was accomplished. Flasks and bonding surfaces
of the teeth were scrubbed with hot soapy water (Dawn liquid
detergent, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) and flushed with
clean boiling tap water to remove wax remnants. All specimens
were examined under a microscope to ensure complete wax
removal. Before resin packing, teeth in the experimental group
had their exposed bonding surface roughened with a carbide
bur (H251.11.060), cleaned with boiling tap water, air dried,
and painted with one drop of monomer. The monomer was left
undisturbed for approximately 3 minutes prior to denture base
injection. The monomer applied to the teeth for each processing
acrylic differed depending on manufacturers’ recommendation
(Ivocap Plus: Probase Cold Monomer, Ivoclar Vivadent; Luci-
tone 199: Lucitone 199 monomer, Dentsply International).
For the groups processed with Success Injection System
(Dentsply International), Lucitone 199 denture acrylic resin
(batch No. 120524 light pink; Dentsply International) was
mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, injected
for 1 minute under pressure in the injection apparatus, allowed
to bench set for 30 minutes, and then placed in a water tank
polymerization unit for 9 hours at 73°C (163°F), followed by
30 minutes at boiling (100°C). The curing unit was allowed to
cool to room temperature, and specimens were deflasked.
For the groups processed with Ivocap Injection Base System
(Ivoclar Vivadent), capsules of acrylic resin (batch No. P69797,
SR-Ivocap Plus High Impact, shade preference; Ivoclar Vi-
vadent) were triturated according to the manufacturer’s recom-
mendations and injected under 6 bars of pressure for 5 min-
utes with the manufacturer’s pressure apparatus. The flask was
then placed in a tank of boiling water (100°C) for 35 minutes.
The flask assembly was immediately placed into cold water for
20 minutes. The pressure apparatus was subsequently removed,
and the flask was kept in cold water for an additional 10 min-
utes before the specimens were deflasked. After processing,
gross nodules of acrylic resin were removed with a carbide bur
(H251.11.060) in a slow-speed handpiece, and specimens were
hydrated by immersing in room temperature water for 24 hours.
Each tooth/acrylic resin set was serially sectioned perpen-
dicular to the bonded interface into beams on an electrical high
precision saw with water cooling (Isomet 1000, Buehler Ltd,
Lake Bluff, IL) and a diamond wafering blade (4” wafering
blade, high concentration Cat#M412H, MetLab Corp, Niagara
Falls, NY) to obtain regular specimens with a 1 mm2 mean
cross-sectional area (Fig 4). Specimens from each group were
subsequently subjected to 10,000 thermocycles in water baths
at 5°C and 55°C, with a 15-second dwell time.
4 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 
Colebeck et al
Five beams were selected from each tooth, totaling 15 beams
for each test condition. Each specimen was individually held in
a metallic holding set with cyanoacrylate adhesive (Zapit Base
and Accelerator, Dental Ventures of America, Corona, CA) and
aligned to a universal testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA).
Prior to alignment in the holder, digital calipers were used to
record the exact area (mm2 ) at the bonded interface for each
specimen. The force (N) at specimen failure and the mode of
failure (adhesive, cohesive, mixed) were recorded for each spec-
imen. The μTBS was calculated using the following equation:
R = F/A, where “R” is the microtensile strength, “F” is the load
required for specimen failure (N), and “A” is the interface area
(mm2 ) of the specimens. The results in N/mm2 were converted
to MPa, as 1 MPa = 1 N/mm2 . The debonded surfaces of the
teeth and base were observed under a light microscope to record
the mode of failure (Fig 5). The mode of failure was classified as
(1) adhesive (clean break at the bond), (2) cohesive (full break
in the base material or tooth), and (3) mixed (a combination of
adhesive and cohesive failure). Representative specimens were
selected and observed after coating with evaporated carbon in
a scanning electron microscope (Hitashi S-4000, Hitachi High
Technologies America, Inc., Schaumburg, IL) operated at 25
kV (Figs 6, 7).
Statistical analysis was performed using two-way and three-
way ANOVA to analyze the results at a significance level of 0.05
in an SPSS statistical software program (version 15.0; SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL). Follow-up multiple comparisons (Tukey
HSD) for cell means were used to further elaborate on the
results. The frequency for each mode of failure was reported
for each group.
Results
The mean μTBS (MPa) and standard deviation as well as mode
of failure for each group are listed in Table 2. Microtensile
bond strength data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA at
a significance level of 0.05. The analysis demonstrated a statis-
tically significant difference between the groups with respect
to tooth type (F3,224 = 69.28, p < 0.005), acrylic base mate-
rial (F1,224 = 134.42, p < 0.005), surface treatment (F1,224 =
26.45, p < 0.005), tooth by acrylic (F3,224 = 99.82, p < 0.005),
tooth by surface treatment (F3,224 = 4.64, p < 0.005), acrylic by
surface treatment (F1,224 = 5.69, p = 0.018), and the interac-
tion among tooth, acrylic, and surface (F3,224 = 5.1, p = 0.002).
To interpret the significant results, a simple interaction effects
analysis was performed using two separate two-way ANOVAs,
one at each level of acrylic base material used, correcting the
F ratio values by using the mean-squared error and degrees
of freedom from the three-way ANOVA.13 Follow-up multiple
comparisons (Tukey HSD) were used to identify the statistically
significant differences among cell means. Table 3 displays the
results of the two-way ANOVA statistical analyses.
A two-way ANOVA comparing the mean μTBS by tooth type
and surface treatment in the Ivocap specimens demonstrated
no statistically significant effect for surface and no interac-
tion between tooth and surface (Table 3). There was a statisti-
cally significant difference in mean μTBS by tooth type (p =
0.002). Follow-up multiple comparisons (Tukey HSD) demon-
strated that BlueLine and Phonares II NHC groups achieved
C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Colebeck et al Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base

Figure 5 Examination of specimens under light microscope to identify mode of failure as adhesive (left-hand side), cohesive (right-hand side), and
mixed (not shown).

Figure 6 SEM analysis of adhesive failure. Denture tooth on left-hand side and denture base on right-hand side.

Figure 7 SEM analysis of cohesive failure. Denture tooth shown in both images.

significantly higher mean μTBS than the Portrait IPN group.
There were no statistically significant differences among Blue-
line, Phonares II PMMA, and Phonares II NHC, or between
Phonares II PMMA and Portrait. The results for mean μTBS
for the Ivocap Plus group are illustrated in Figure 8.
A two-way ANOVA comparing the mean μTBS by tooth
type and surface treatment in the Lucitone 199 specimens
demonstrated a significant main effect for surface treatment
(Table 3). Follow-up multiple comparisons (Tukey HSD)
demonstrated that the BlueLine and Phonares II NHC groups,
with the manufacturer-recommended surface treatment of
roughening and monomer application demonstrated higher
mean μTBS than the control surface (p < 0.005). There was
no significant effect for surface in the Portrait or Phonares II
PMMA groups. There was a statistically significant differ-
ence in μTBS by tooth type (p < 0.005). Follow-up multiple
comparisons (Tukey HSD) demonstrated that BlueLine, Por-
trait, and Phonares II PMMA groups achieved significantly

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 

C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists 5
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base Colebeck et al

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for mean μTBS (15 specimens/group)

Ivocap Plus (I) Lucitone 199 (L)

Sample group Denture tooth R (MPa) CO/AD/MIX R (MPa) CO/AD/MIX

Control (C) Blueline DCL (B) 58.6 ± 9.2 4/11/0 51.3 ± 10.7 6/9/0
- Portrait IPN (P) 50.4 ± 8.7 6/9/0 58.7 ± 6.3 13/2/0
- Phonares II (Ph) 58.7 ± 4.8 12/3/0 50.1 ± 8.5 11/4/0
- Phonares II NHC (PhN) 58.1 ± 5.3 0/15/0 13.3 ± 5.12 0/15/0
Experimental (E) BlueLine DCL (B) 60.0 ± 7.7 10/3/2 60.0 ± 6.1 9/2/4
- Portrait IPN (P) 56.2 ± 5.6 8/7/0 60.1 ± 6.0 15/0/0
- Phonares II PMMA (Ph) 59.1 ± 8.2 7/8/0 50.6 ± 8.3 12/3/0
- Phonares II NHC (PhN) 60.8 ± 5.0 0/15/0 30.9 ± 7.1 0/15/0

Groups: Control- glaze removed, polished; E- glaze removed, roughened/monomer

CO/AD/MIX represents the number of cohesive/adhesive/mixed failures in each group of 15 specimens.

Table 3 Two-way ANOVA of bond strength data

Acrylic Variable df Sum of squares Mean square F p

Ivocap Plus Tooth 3 797.914 265.971 5.062 0.00207

Surface 1 199.735 199.735 3.802 0.05244
Tooth × Surface 3 121.933 40.644 0.733 0.53330
Error 224a 5514.093 52.537a
Total 120 406373.012
Lucitone 199 Tooth 3 25853.019 8617.673 164.030 0.00000
Surface 1 1488.420 1488.420 28.331 0.00000
Tooth x Surface 3 1413.369 471.123 8.967 0.00001
Error 224a 6254.092 52.537a
Total 120 298592.767

a
These values were from the omnibus three-way ANOVA.

higher mean μTBS than the Phonares II NHC group. There
were no statistically significant differences among BlueLine,
Portrait, and Phonares II PMMA groups. The results for
mean μTBS for the Lucitone 199 group are illustrated in
Figure 9.
The quality of the bond was evaluated for all specimens
(Table 2). No adhesive failures were observed for the experi-
mental Portrait group processed with Lucitone 199. The mode
of failure for all Phonares II NHC groups was 100% adhe-
sive. Experimental Blueline groups processed with both acrylic
types demonstrated some mixed failures, while all other groups
had a combination of adhesive and cohesive failures among the
specimens.
Discussion
In prosthodontic practice, debonding of denture teeth from the
denture base is a major concern. In past studies, denture tooth to
base bond failure has been determined by test methods such as
tensile, shear, peel, and four-point flexure testing.4 As observed
by other authors, these conventional tests are not a reliable
method for testing bond strength between denture teeth and
base resin because they are not truly testing the bonded interface
and tend to induce cohesive fractures.14 The present study used
a μTBS test that has the advantage of controlling the bonded
surface area and allowing each specimen to have a more uniform
distribution of interfacial stresses.6
The overall results of this study offer limited support that
materials from the same manufacturer may achieve a stronger
bond. Among the specimens tested with Ivocap Plus acrylic,
there was significantly greater bond strength with the teeth
made by the same manufacturer as the base acrylic compared to
a denture tooth made by a different manufacturer. For Lucitone
199 groups, while the result was not statistically significant, the
denture tooth produced by the same manufacturer as the acrylic
base had a higher mean μTBS in the control group as compared
to the control groups of the other denture teeth. There have been
very few studies reporting on the compatibility of teeth and
acrylics by the same manufacturers versus combinations from
different manufacturers. Dalal et al15 investigated the effect of
curing cycle on the strength of the bond between homogeneous
crosslinked acrylic resin teeth and heat-cured acrylic resin base
material, finding that the strongest bonds were achieved when
both the denture tooth and resin were made by the same manu-
facturer. Patil et al16 matched pairs of acrylic resin denture teeth
and denture base acrylic from three separate manufacturers to
investigate the bond strength compatibility among the brands.
Although no statistical significance was achieved, the authors
reported a trend with each of the acrylic resin denture base ma-
terials forming a stronger bond with the denture teeth from the
same manufacturer.

6 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 

C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Colebeck et al
Figure 8 Microtensile bond strength (MPa) of Ivocap groups by tooth type and surface treatment.
Many studies have reported on the effect that ridge-lap sur-
face treatments have on the bond strength between denture teeth
and base acrylics, but there is little consensus among them.3,8-11
Additionally, it is difficult to compare the results of one study
to another, as the materials and testing parameters can vary
greatly. The present study found a significant effect for Blue-
Line and Phonares II NHC tooth specimens processed with
Lucitone 199 base acrylic; the treatment of roughening and
monomer application produced higher mean μTBS as com-
pared to the control groups. There was no statistical signifi-
cance of surface treatment among the groups processed with
Ivocap Plus acrylic. Considering that Ivocap Plus and Lucitone
199 acrylics are chemically similar, it is not clear why this
occurred. Perhaps the operator variation is reduced with the
Ivocap system, since the acrylic is supplied in a container with
a pre-measured automatically triturated powder:monomer ratio
(vs. the operator-measured and hand-mixed Lucitone 199 sys-
tem). While every effort was made to consistently measure the
Lucitone 199 powder and liquid and mix with the same amount
of setting time, there may have been variance among the spec-
imens processed. The application of monomer prior to resin
packing is advised by manufacturers to prime the ridge-lap sur-
face by dissolving part of the PMMA of the tooth, providing free
double bonds that may copolymerize with the PMMA of the
denture base.17 Lang et al18 observed improved bond strength
among denture teeth pretreated with monomer prior to acrylic
packing and noted that Lucitone 199 is dry with little methyl
methacrylate available in the acrylic for dissolution of the tooth
PMMA.
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 
C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base
The different processing techniques used by the Ivocap and
Success injection systems may also account for the lack of sig-
nificance of surface treatment among the Ivocap groups. The
Ivocap Injection System injects the base acrylic into the den-
ture mold under six bars of constant pressure for 5 minutes on
the bench top, and the pressure is kept constant while curing
in a boiling water bath for 35 minutes. The flask is designed in
such a way that a temperature gradient is achieved within the
flask, resulting in the denture polymerizing from the anterior
region to the injection area. This allows uncured material to be
continuously pressed into the flask, compensating for polymer-
ization shrinkage. With the Success injection system, Lucitone
199 acrylic is injected under pressure for only 1 minute. There
may be a component of the high pressure and continuous in-
jection of acrylic in the Ivocap system that allows the diffusion
of monomers into the denture teeth, accounting for the lack of
significance of surface treatment.
In this study, the research hypothesis that the highly cross-
linked PMMA denture teeth and NHC teeth with PMMA
present at the bonding interface (Phonares II PMMA) will
have a greater bond strength to denture base compared with
the NHC denture teeth with PMMA removed (Phonares II
NHC) was partially accepted. Lucitone 199 acrylic bonded
with Phonares II denture teeth demonstrated the lowest bond
strength among all specimens tested. It was also the only
combination that demonstrated purely adhesive failure. The
failure mode for all other groups in this study consisted of
some combination of cohesive, adhesive, or mixed failure,
except Portrait IPN with Lucitone 199 acrylic and ridge-lap
7
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base
Figure 9 Microtensile bond strength (MPa) of Lucitone 199 groups by tooth type and surface treatment.
surface modification (group EPL), which had only cohesive
failure. These results indicate that an acrylic denture base
and composite denture tooth may only achieve a mechan-
ical, rather than chemical bond with one another. In con-
trast, the purely cohesive failure mode demonstrated by group
EPL suggests that this combination of tooth, base acrylic,
and surface treatment create a highly compatible bonded
interface.
Based on these results, lab technicians and dentists should
exercise caution when grossly reducing the ridge lap surface of
the NHC denture teeth, especially if a base acrylic by a different
manufacturer from the tooth is going to be used; however, this
study was limited in the variety of ridge-lap surface treatments
and type of denture teeth and base acrylic tested. Hence, fur-
ther research investigating the bond strength of different NHC
denture teeth with various acrylic resins and surface treatments
would be necessary to draw definitive conclusions and recom-
mendations.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions
can be made:
1. Among the Ivocap specimens, BlueLine DCL and
Phonares II NHC had significantly higher μTBS than
Portrait IPN to Ivocap Plus acrylic.
2. Within the Luctione 199 specimens, there was a signifi-
cantly higher μTBS for BlueLine DCL and Phonares II
NHC denture teeth with the manufacturer-recommended
surface treatment when compared to control surface.
8 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 
Colebeck et al
3. When bonded to Lucitone 199, BlueLine, Portrait, and
Phonares II PMMA groups achieved significantly higher
mean μTBS than the Phonares II NHC group.
4. Phonares II NHC groups demonstrated only adhesive
failure when bonded to Lucitone 199 and Ivocap base
acrylic. Portrait IPN with Lucitone 199 acrylic and ridge-
lap surface modifications demonstrated only cohesive
failure. All other groups had some combination of cohe-
sive, adhesive, or mixed failure.
Acknowledgments
Materials support was graciously provided by Dentsply Inter-
national and Ivoclar Vivadent.
References
1. Darbar UR, Huggett R, Harrison A: Denture fracture-a survey.
Br Dent J 1994;176:342-345
2. Rodrigues AH: Metal reinforcement for implant-supported
mandibular overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:511-513
3. Goodacre, CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, et al: Clinical
complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;90:121-132
4. Patil SB, Naveen BH, Patil NP: Bonding acrylic teeth to
acrylic resin denture bases: a review. Gerodontology 2006;23:
131-139
5. ISO 22112: Dentistry—artificial teeth for dental prostheses.
International Organization for Standardization. Geneva,
Switzerland, 2005.
6. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, et al: The microtensile bond
test: a review. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:299-309
C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Colebeck et al
7. Chaves CA, Regis RR, Machado AL, et al: Effect of ridge lap
surface treatment and thermocycling on microtensile bond
strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resins. Braz Dent J
2009;20:127-131
8. Saavedra G, Valandro LF, Leite FP, et al: Bond strength of
acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface
conditioning methods before and after thermocycling. Int J
Prosthodont 2007;20:199-201
9. Spratley MH: An investigation of the adhesion of acrylic resin
teeth to dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:389-392
10. Morrow RM, Matvias FM, Windeler AS, et al: Bonding of
plastic teeth to two heat-curing denture base resins. J Prosthet
Dent 1978;39:565-568
11. Sorensen SE, Fjeldstad E: Bonding of plastic teeth to acrylic
resin denture base materials. J Dent Res 1961;40:774-779
12. Cardash HS, Liberman R, Helft M: The effect of retention
grooves in acrylic resin teeth on tooth denture-base bond. J
Prosthet Dent 1986;55:526-528
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2014) 1–9 
C 2014 American College of Prosthodontists
Microtensile Bond Strength of Acrylic Teeth to Denture Base
13. Cohen B: Explaining Psychological Statistics (ed 3). New York,
Wiley, 2007, pp. 688-701
14. Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, et al: A critique of bond
strength measurements. J Dent 1989;17:61-67
15. Dalal A, Juszczyk AS, Radford DR, et al: Effect of curing cycle
on the tensile strength of the bond between heat cured denture
base acrylic resin and acrylic resin denture teeth. Eur J
Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:146-149
16. Patil R, Juszczyk AS, Radford DR, et al: Is the bond between
acrylic resin denture teeth and denture base resin stronger if they
are both made by the same manufacturer? Eur J Prosthodont
Restor Dent 2010;18:39-41
17. Lagouvardos PE, Polyzois GL: Shear bond strength between
composite resin and denture teeth: effect of tooth type and
surface treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16: 499-504
18. Lang R, Kolbeck C, Bergmann R, et al: Bond of acrylic teeth to
different denture base resins after various surface-conditioning
methods. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:319-323
9