Flexural strength of provisional restorative materials

Y. I. Osman, BChD, MChD,a and C. P. Owen, BDS, MScDent, MChDb

Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa

A provisional restorative material must be strong enough to resist fracture during

function. This study tested flve autopolymerizing provisional resin materials under
conditions that related the stresses acting on them to those acting on a axed partial
denture. The highest values for fracture resistance were displayed by Snap
poly(ethy1 methacrylate) material. However, two of the 11 samples of this material
displayed markedly lower values for fracture resistance. This finding warrants
further investigation, because inconsistency has clinical implications. In decreasing
order, the fracture resistance of the other materials was as follows: the poly(me-
thy1 methacrylate) materials, Caulk temporary bridge resin and G-C Unifast
temporary resin; the composite material, Protemp; and the epimine material,
Scutan. (J PROSTHET DENT 1993;70:94-6.)

A provisional restoration must fulfill several func-
tions, not least of which is that it must be strong enough to
resist fracture.lW5A number of studies have examined the
mechanical properties of resins found to be acceptable for
use as provisional restorations, but there has been little
consistency in the methods used.6-g
Braden et a1.7in 1971 tested a newly introduced ethyl-
ene-imine (epimine) material and found that the impact
strength, tensile strength, and extension to fracture were
all decidedly inferior to a poly(methy1 methacrylate). In a
later study a resin based on a poly(ethy1 methacrylate)
polymer powder and n-butyl methacrylate monomer sys-
tem was compared with a conventional acrylic resin, an
epimine, and a poly(ethy1 methacrylate) resin of composi-
tion similar to that being tested, but which used isobutyl
instead of n-butyl methacrylate monomer.” Rectangular
specimens 60 x 5 x 1.5 mm were used. Flexural strength
aHead, Department of Conservative Dentistry.
bProfeasor and Head, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry.
Copyright @ 1993 by The Editorial Council of THE JOURNAL OF
PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY.
0022-3913/93/$1.00 + .lO. 10/l/45956
was tested by clamping one end of each specimen and ap-
plying varying loads to the other. The new resin and the
epimine showed higher values under these test conditions,
but the new resin and the poly(ethy1 methacrylate) had
lower Young’s modulus values. Increased flexibility can be
an advantage in a provisional resin material, but the flex-
ural strength test used may not be directly applicable clin-
ically.
Fracture toughness has been tested by placement of
specimens in tension in a servohydraulic loading appara-
tus.sThe specimens were in the form of a 14.4 x 15 x 4 mm
slotted block in which a precrack was formed. An epimine
and two poly(ethy1 methacrylate) resins demonstrated the
greatest fracture toughness. A poly(ethy1 methacrylate)
had the lowest fracture toughness, and a composite mate-
rial was intermediate in toughness.
In the clinical situation, a fixed partial denture is
subjected to a variety of forces when under load. These
forces have been shown by photoelastic stress analysis
studies to be compressive at the points of application of
load, and tensile and shear at the points of resistance to
that load.iO This study compared the flexural strength of a
variety of provisional resins with a destruct test that would
simulate a clinical situation.

Table I. Materials used

Trade name Resin type Manufacturer Batch No.

Caulk Temporary Bridge Besin Poly(methy1 methacrylate) L. D. Caulk Co. 940378

(“Caulk’s”) Dentaply International
Milford, Delaware
G-C Unifast temporary resin Poly(methy1 methacrylate) G-C Dental Industrial Corporation 090661
(“Unifast”) Tokyo, Japan
Protemp Composite ESPE Fabrik GMbH N112
Seefeld, Germany
Scutan Epimine ESPE Fabrik GMbH Do17
Snap Poly(ethy1 Parke11Bio-Materials Division 35151
methacrylate) Farmingdale, h’. Y.

94 VOLUME70 NUMBER1
OSMAN AND OWEN THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

LOAD SNAP
I

CAULK’S

UNIFAST

Fig. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the destruct test PROTEMP

used. Force applied is resolved as a combination of com-
pressive CC),tensile (T), and shear (S) stresses.
SCUTAN
Fig. 2. Materials not significantly different at p < 0.05
MATERIAL AND METHOD are linked by the bars.
The materials used are listed in Table I. Standard spec-
imens of each material were produced from a brass mold
designed on a split-cast principle. Tinfoil was used as the Table II. Force (in kilonewtons) required to fracture
separating medium. Each mold yielded two identical spec- specimens
imens, the dimensions of which were 3 x 5 x 90 mm. A Snap Caulk’s Unifast Protemp Scutan
standardized procedure was used for constructing the
specimens. All of the materials used came from the same 0.47 0.23 0.27 0.13 0.13
batch for each manufacturer. The materials were mixed 0.54 0.23 0.24 0.20 0.12
with weighed quantities of powder and a predetermined 0.53 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.15
0.54 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.14
volume of liquid pipetted into the powder. The materials
0.13 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.17
were mixed under clinical conditions according to the
0.56 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.17
manufacturers’ instructions. They were syringed into the 0.55 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.14
mold and allowed to bench cure for 20 minutes under a 0.57 0.21 0.23 0.18 0.18
constant pressure of 500 gm. The specimens were stored at 0.53 0.23 0.22 0.15 0.17
room temperature for 24 hours and then incubated in nor- 0.15 0.26 0.22 0.15 0.12
mal saline at 37’ C for at least 24 hours. 0.54 0.25 0.23 0.16 0.12
Each specimen was assigned a number from a computer- Mean 0.46 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.14
generated list of random numbers. The specimens were SD 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
then subjected to fracture tests on a tensile testing ma-
chine. The operator performing the fracture tests did
not know which numbers were assigned to which material.
The specimens were placed such that a central length of RESULTS
10 mm of the specimen was loaded (Fig. 1). The machine The force required to fracture the specimens is shown in
used was the J.J.Tensile testing machine, type T5001 Table II. The highest figure was obtained by Snap poly-
with a crosshead speed of 5 mm per minute. The machine (ethyl methacrylate) material. ANOVA revealed an f value
was calibrated to a load cell sensitivity of 1, with a paper of 31.4, which is significant at p < 0.001. The REGWQ
crosshead ratio of 1:l. It had a load cell rating of five multiple range test revealed that the difference between
kilonewtons (5 kN). Thus a pen movement of 250 mm on the Snap material and all other materials tested was
the graph paper was representative of a force of 5 kN ap- significant at p < 0.05. At this level, the test also revealed
plied to the specimen. When the specimens were fractured, that there was no significant difference between Caulk’s,
the ends were observed under a laboratory magnifying Unifast, and Protemp materials and no difference between
glass. The presence of any air bubbles within the fracture Protemp and Scutan materials (Fig. 2).
face of the specimen excluded the specimen from the
experiment. DISCUSSION
One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test The test used in this study is an attempt to simulate the
for a significant difference between the materials. A Ryan- clinical situation, where a combination of compressive,
Einot-Gabriel-Welsch (REGWQ) multiple range test was tensile, and shear stresses have been shown to act as indi-
used to test for differences between the groups.‘l cated in Fig. l.‘O Under the test conditions used, the poly-

JULY 1993 95
(ethyl methacrylate) material (Snapj displayed the great-
est. value for resistance to fracture, followed by the poly-
(methyl methacrylate) materials, the composite, and lastly
the epimine resin. These results differ from those reported
by Gegauff and Pryor,s but can be explained by the differ-
ence in test method used; the study cited placed the test
specimens in tension only.
Despite the higher figures obtained for the poly(ethy1
methacrylate) material, this material displayed a larger
standard deviation than the other materials. This was be-
cause of the effect of two of the specimens, which displayed
markedly lower values. If these two results are removed, the
standard deviation obtained becomes 0.03 and the mean
increases to 0.54 kN. The source of this variation is not
known and requires further investigation as to the consis-
tency of the behavior of this material, because of the evi-
dent clinical implications.
The flexural strength of a provisional resin is only one of
a number of factors to be taken into account in selecting
suitable materials for clinical use. This study has shown
that, under the test conditions used, the poly(ethy1 meth-
acrylate) materials would be expected to provide a greater
flexural strength when used for provisional fixed partial
dentures.
CONCLUSIONS
A method to test the flexural strength of five provisional
resin materials that provided a simulation of the clinical
condition of a fixed partial denture revealed the following:
1. The highest values for fracture resistance were dis-
late) materials Caulk Temporary Bridge tieslrl and ( i-l:
Unifast Temporary resin, the Protemp composire mat r~%~l.
and the Scutan epimine material.
We acknowledge with grateful thanks the kind Iwlp antl ativ~cc,
of Prof. C. Jooste of the Faculty of Dentistry. t’niversit?; crf Strl-
lenbosch. We are also indebted to that Faculty l’or their kind I,v~-
mission f’or the use of their tensilr testing machine. Dr. (’ I.ill:!-
bard of the Medical Research Council carried or11t-he st;li.isl II,;II
analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Krug RS. Temporary resin crowns and bridges. Iknr (‘lin North Am
1975;19:313-20.
2. Kastenbeum F. Lahoraton, processed prowsiona~ prosr.heses. N\ ,I
Dent 1982;52:39-44.
3. McCabe JF. Temporary crown and bridge rehnw. In: >lcCubr <IF.
Anderson’s applied dental materials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Put)-
licarions, 1985;153-4.
4. Vahidi F. The provisional reatorat.ion. NY State Iknr .I April lYR$:ZO%
11.
5. Russell MD. The role of provisional res~orat.iw~. Dental Updart*
1986;13:42s,-37
6. Petersen EA. Phillips RW. Swartz ML. A comparison of the physical
properties of four restorative resins. J Am Dent Assor 1966:7X1324-36.
7. Braden M, Causton B, Clark RL An ethylene-imine derivative as a
temporary crown and bridge material. .J Dent Res 1971:50:536-41
8. Gegauff AC, Pryor HG. Apparent fracture toughnessof provisional res-
ins for fixed prosthodontim [Abstract]. d Dent Res lR86:65(Special is-
sue):190.
9. Braden M. Clark RL. Pearson GL, Campbell-Key WA. New temporar!
crown and bridge resin. Br Dent J 1976;141:269-72.
10. El-Ebrashi MK, Craig RG, Peyron FA. Experimental stress analyst 01
dental restorations. Part VII. Structural design and stress analysis 01
fixed partial dentures. ,I PIWSTHET DBNY 1970;23:177-8t;
11. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT l Users guide version 6. 4th ed, vol :!
Carp, N.C: SAS Institutions Inc. lY8%849 pp.

played by the Snap poly(methy1 methacrylate) material.

This material also displayed a large standard deviation be-
cause of the effect of two of 11 specimens, which displayed
markedly lower values. This finding requires further in-
vestigation.
2. In decreasing order, the fracture resistance of the
other materials was as follows: the poly(methy1 methacry-

96 VOLUME 70 NUMRER I