Indian Journal of Public Health ResearchDOI Number: 10.

37506/v11/i1/2020/ijphrd/193825
& Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01 255

To Compare the Flexural Properties of Three Commercially

Available Heat Cure Denture Base Resins After Water
Immersion Over a Period of Three Months: An in Vitro Study

Neha Chugh1, Pradeep Sheriger2, Dhanasekar Balakrishnan3, Aparna Ichalangod Narayan4

1Post Graduate Student, 2Additional Professor, 3Professor and Head, 4Professor, Department of
Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal College of Dental sciences, Manipal

Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the flexural properties of three commercially available brands of PMMA heat
cure denture base resins after water immersion over a period of 3 months.

Method and Material: Commercially available heat cure denture base resins (DPI, Triplex, and Trevalon)
were used in the study. An aluminum die was fabricated according to ISO 1567. Each of the tested materials
was manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions. Total of 60 samples were made (n=10). With
3 control (dry) groups and three experimental (water immersed) groups. The samples were subjected to
INSTRON universal testing machine.

Statistical Analysis Used: Student ‘t’ test, ANOVA and Post hoc tukey’s test.

Results: Student ‘t’ test indicated that there is significant difference in the flexural properties of the denture
base resins after long term water immersion with p<0.05 for all the three groups. ANOVA indicated that
there was no significant difference among the three groups/brands.

Conclusions: The flexural properties of heat cure denture base resins was affected by long term water
immersion. The ultimate flexural strength decreased, flexural strength at proportional limit remained same
and modulus of elasticity decreased. Thus after long term water immersion, the denture base material
becomes weaker and stiffer.

Keywords: Denture base resins; Flexural strength; tensile strength; elastic modulus; Water sorption; Water
immersion.

Introduction commonly used in the fabrication of complete & partial

Acrylic resins were acquainted to dentistry in 19371,2
and since that time, none of the materials equaled the
appearance of the oral soft tissues with such pronounced
reliability as acrylic resin. The acrylic resins are now
dentures, various other intraoral and extraoral prostheses
and has an acceptable overall performance.
Skinner and Cooper3 suggested that a minor lack
in dimensional stability must be accepted as one of the
short comings of acrylic resin dentures, with shrinkage
and expansion being the two unavoidable glitches.

Corresponding Author: For acrylic prostheses to thrive effectively in a

Pradeep Sheriger
Additional Professor, Room No. 5 Department of
Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Manipal
College of Dental Sciences, Manipal
e-mail: pradeep.s@manipal.edu
hostile oral environment, it should possess acceptable
mechanical and physical properties, i.e. flexural strength,
hardness, water sorption, solubility.4,5 Physical and
mechanical properties may vary among different groups
of acrylic resins, which is a result of differences in their
256 Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01
chemical structure and the cycle of polymerization
process.6-9 In addition to distortions which may occur
due to thermal softening or release of internal stresses
other mechanism such as water sorption may also
contribute to dimensional instability as well10.

A usual weakness of the denture base polymers with

respect to fatigue is the flexural strength, which limits its
use in demanding clinical situations.11,12 Studies13 have
been conducted to evaluate the relationship between
the flexural strength and the period of water immersion
showing a significant decrease in the flexural strength at
proportional limit for the denture reline materials when Figure 1
the duration of water immersion was increased from Aliminum die
1 to 30 days. Further studies14 also exhibited flexural
strength at proportional limit remained constant after Selection and Manipulation of denture base
water immersion. materials: Three commonly used Denture Base
Materials were used for the study. The materials were
Other studies also showed that the ultimate flexural divided into three groups of 20 samples each, with a total
strengths and flexural moduli of dry specimens of acrylic of 60 samples (figure 2).
resin composites had decreased after 48 weeks of water
immersion15 and fiber reinforced composites after 10
years of water immersion16.

Some studies have been done investigating the

relationship between the mechanical properties of
denture polymers and the water immersion period13, 15-17
however, to best of our knowledge, there is insufficient
information to systemically evaluate the effect on the
flexural properties of denture immersed in water over a
longer period.

In this context, the purpose of this study was to

investigate the flexural properties of three brands of
commercially available denture base resins subjected to
water immersion over a period of three months. Figure 2

Subjects and Method Acrylic Samples:

The study was directed to evaluate and compare
the flexural properties of three commercial brands of
Poly methylmethacrylate (PMMA) heat cure denture
base resins after water immersion over a period of three
months. Efforts were made to select and utilize standard
method and materials.
Preparation of the Master Die: Aluminum
Master Die of dimension 65×10×3 mm3 (figure 1)
was fabricated using a Milling Machine in accordance
with ISO 1567:1999, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999 for Denture
Base Polymers.18
Group I: PMMA pink heat cure resin (Dental
Products of India, Mumbai)
Group II: PMMA pink heat cure resin (SR Triplex
Hot, IVOCLAR VIVADENT AG)
Group III: PMMA pink heat cure resin (Trevalon,
Dentsply India Private Limited. Gurgaon Haryana)
Preparation of samples:-The heat cure denture
base materials were dispensed and mixed following
manufacturer’s instructions. When the mix reached the
dough stage, the die was packed and a cellophane sheet
was used as separating medium between the die and the
 Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01
resin mix. After packing, the die was placed in a Kavo
clamp which was subsequently placed in a hydraulic
press at 2000 psi for 5 mins. Overnight bench curing was
allowed and then the samples were placed in an acrylizer
for long curing, bench cooled overnight and samples
were removed from the die and finished with 100, 200,
400 and 600grit of sandpaper, followed by polishing
with pumice
Storage in water: The samples were divided into
six sub groups, three sub groups Ia, IIa, IIIa were used
as control. The other three sub groups Ib, IIb, IIIb were
weighed and stored in distilled water at 37⁰C and the
specimens were then subjected to flexural testing.
Test for flexural properties: The specimens were
tested for ultimate flexural strength (MPa), flexural
strength at the proportional limit (MPa) and the elastic
modulus (MPa). Height and width of each specimen was
recorded before testing. Dry specimens (control group)
were tested soon after they were prepared. For water
immersed specimens, each specimen was taken out one
by one from water storage and placed on a 50 mm-long
support for three point flexural testing. A vertical load
was then applied at the mid-point of the specimen at a
crosshead speed of 5 mm/min on a load testing machine.
Load was applied until failure, and fracture load was
recorded in Newtons (N) (figure 3).
Figure 3
Testing using Instron machine: All the tests were
performed under uniform atmospheric conditions of
23.0 ± 1⁰C and 50 ± 1% relative humidity and calculated
using formulas.
Calculation of ultimate flexural strength: UFS =
3FL/2bh2
257
F: Load at fracture, L: Span length that was 50mm,
b: Width of the Specimen,h: thickness of the specimen.
Calculation of Flexural Strength at Proportional
Limit:-FPL = 3F1L/2bh2
F1: Load at Proportional limit. The load at
proportional limit was determined from each load
deflection graph that was plotted for every specimen,L:
Span length that was 50 mm,b: Width of the specimen,
h: Thickness of the specimen.
Calculation of Elastic Modulus: MOE=F2L3/4bh3d
F2: Load at any point on the straight line of the load/
deflection graph,L: Span length 50mm,b: width of the
specimen,h: Thickness of the specimen,d: Deflection
corresponding to F2.
Statistical Analysis: Data was analyzed using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version
18.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago IL). Mean (X) and Standard
Deviation (SD) was calculated for ultimate flexural
strength, flexural strength at proportional limit and
modulus of elasticity.
For all the tests a p-value of <0.05 was considered
statistically significant. Comparison of mean values
was done using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey’s test.
Comparison of mean before and after values were done
using student t test.
Results
Mean ultimate flexural strength (UFS) for group
Ia, Ib; IIa, IIb; IIIa, IIIb were compared using student
t test. There were significant differences in the values
of ultimate flexural strength among the dry and the wet
samples of each group/brands. (Table 1)
Mean flexural strength at proportional limit (FPL)
for Ia (dry) (34.89±4.36), Ib (wet) (37.92±5.65), IIa
(dry) (32.87±3.58), IIb (wet) (35.16±4.25), IIIa (dry)
(37.04±5.48), IIIb (wet) (35.50±6.98) compared with
student t test. There was no significant difference in the
values of flexural strength at proportional limit among
the dry and the wet samples of each group/brands.
Mean modulus of elasticity (MOE) for group Ia,
Ib; IIa, IIb; IIIa, IIIb were compared using student t
test. There was significant difference in the values of
modulus of elasticity among the dry and the wet samples
of each group/brands. (Table 2) MOE increased after
water immersion.
258 Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01
When compared among the three brands the flexural properties were similar to each other and there was no
significant difference.

Table 1: Comparison of ultimate flexural strength (UFS) of dry and wet samples of each group/brands.

Dry (a) Wet (b)

UFS p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Group I 93.51 6.55 79.62** 10.17 0.002; Sig
Group II 92.65 5.93 72.92** 8.03 <0.001; Sig
Group III 91.66 8.65 79.88** 8.37 0.008; Sig

Table 2: Comparison of modulus of elasticity (MOE) of dry and wet samples of each group/brands.

Dry (a) Wet (b)

MOE (Ƞ) p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Group I 2588.33 195.11 2724.60 194.54* 0.031; Sig
Group II 2472.16 126.52 2738.57 218.19** <0.001; Sig
Group III 2488.11 123.32 2803.24 170.38** <0.001; Sig

* (P < 0.05) ** (P <0.001)

Discussion The second parameter evaluated in this study was

the flexural strength at proportional limit (FPL). Denture
The ultimate flexural strength of a material reflects
base plastics typically exhibit considerable plastic
its potential to resist catastrophic failure under a flexural
deformation before fracture. The plastic deformation
load. High flexural strength is crucial to denture wearing
beyond its proportional limit permanently alters the
success, as alveolar resorption is a gradual, irregular
dimensions of a denture and is not clinically acceptable.
process that leaves tissue-borne prostheses unevenly
Hence, in this study, the flexural strength at the
supported. As a foundation, the acrylic resin materials
proportional limit was also evaluated. The proportional
should exhibit a high proportional limit to resist plastic
limit of each sample was calculated using the load
deformation and also exhibit fatigue resistance to endure
deflection graph. The values of mean flexural strength at
repeated masticatory loads.19 The prime and most
proportional limit (FPL) showed that the flexural strength
frequent site of fracture in the upper denture is in the
at proportional limit (FPL) did not show any significant
medial line. During chewing, denture base material is
difference after water immersion over a period of three
subjected to flexural deformation.20 An acrylic resin
months. These results were in accordance with the
capable of sustaining higher flexure in combination
previous studies done by Takahashi17, 21 et al in 1999,
with high resistance to cyclic loading may be less prone
and in 2013, and Sasaki14 et al in 2016.
to clinical failure.19 In the present study, INSTRON
three point bend test was used to calculate the flexural The third parameter used in the study was modulus
properties, including the measurement of ultimate of elasticity (MOE). As modulus of elasticity increases,
flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and flexural the material becomes more rigid. A denture base material
strength at proportional limit. with a high elastic modulus can withstand permanent
mastication-induced deformation.22 The present study
The results of this study revealed that, the ultimate
showed decrease in the modulus of elasticity after long
flexural strength of three groups/brands of heat cure
term water immersion for all the groups. These results
denture base resins reduced significantly after long
are consistent with the previous studies conducted by
term water immersion. These results were similar to
Vallittu15, 16 et al in 1998 and 2007 and Sasaki13 et al in
the results as shown by previous studies conducted by
the 2016. The results varied from the study conducted by
Vallittu et al in 1998 for 48 weeks15 of water immersion
Takahashi et al in 2103 where the Modulus of elasticity
and in 2000 for 10 years16 of water immersion.
increased after water immersion.21 This variation in
 Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01
results may be due to difference in control groups. In
the present study the controls were dry samples, while in
study done by Takahashi21 et al the control samples were
immersed in water.
Thus, the strength of a denture polymer at a given
time after water immersion is affected by the relative
number of those molecules present17. Similarly, in this
study, the outward leakage of the soluble constituents
affected the flexural properties and it appeared that
the ultimate flexural strengths and the elastic modulus
decreased. As a result, the denture base resins became
weak and less stiff after long term water immersion.
From these results, it appears that denture base resins
generally trend toward decreasing the elastic modulus
after water immersion over a period of three months.
To summarize, water immersion over a period of
three months generally decreased the ultimate flexural
strength and did not change the flexural strength at the
proportional limit, it also increased the elastic modulus
of the denture base resins. The decrease in the ultimate
flexural strength of denture resins results in weakness,
which is not acceptable in material science. However, no
change in the flexural strength at the proportional limit
of denture resins means keeping the resistance to plastic
deformation and an increase in the elastic modulus of
denture resins causes stiffness, which are both clinically
acceptable.
Conclusion:
Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded
that,
1. The flexural properties of all the three denture base
resins were affected by water immersion over a
period of three months.
2. The ultimate flexural strength decreased after l water
immersion over a period of three months.
3. However the flexural strength at proportional limit
remains the same after water immersion over a
period of three months.
4. The modulus of elasticity decreased after water
immersion over a period of three months.
5. When compared among the three brands the flexural
properties were similar to each other and there was
no significant difference.
Ethical Clearance: Taken from Institutional ethical
committee, Manipal.
259
Source of Funding: Self
Conflict of Interest: Nil
References
1. Sear VH. Developments in denture field during the
past half century. J Prosthet Dent 1958; 8:61-7.
2. Peyton FA. History of resins in dentistry. Dent Clin
North Am 1975; 19:211-22.
3. Skinner EW, Cooper EN. Physical properties of
denture resins: part I. Curing shrinkage and water
sorption. J Am Dent Assoc 1943; 30:1845-52.
4. Krunić N, Kostić M, Anđelković M. Acrylic resins
- still irreplaceable materials in prosthetic dentistry.
Acta Stomatol Naissi 2007; 23: 747-52.
5. Uzun G, Hersek N. Comparison of the fracture
resistance of six denture base acrylic resins. J
Biomater Appl 2002; 17: 19-29.
6. Bartolini JA, Murchison DF, Wofford DT, Sarkar
NK. Degree of conversion in denture base materials
for various polymerization techniques. J Oral
Rehabil 2000; 27: 488-93.
7. 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 J 2004; 20: 133-41.
8. Vergani CE, Seo RS, Pavarina AC, dos Santos Nunes
Reis JM. Flexural strength of autopolymerizing
denture reline resins with microwave post
polymerization treatment. J Prosthet Dent 2005;
93: 577-83.
9. Spartalis GK, Cappelletti LK, Schoeffel AC, Michel
MD, Pegoraro TA, Arrais CAG, Neppelenbroek
KH, Urban VM. Effect of conventional water-bath
and experimental microwave polymerizationcycles
on the flexural properties of denture base acrylic
resins. Dent Mater J 2015;34(5): 623–628.
10. Powers JP, Sakaguchi RL. Craig’s restorative
dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis, MO; Mosby;
2006.p. 517-524
11. Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE. Evaluation of adhesion
of chair side hard relining materials to denture base
polymers. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94:445-52.
12. Mumcu E, Cilingir A, Gencel B, Sülün T.
Flexural properties of a light-cure and a self-cure
denture base materials compared to conventional
alternatives. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3:136.9.
260 Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, January 2020, Vol. 11, No. 01
13. Takahashi Y, Chai J, Kawaguchi M. Effect of water
sorption on the resistance to plastic deformation of
a denture base material relined with four different
denture reline materials. Int J Prosthodont 1998;
11:49–54.
14. Sasaki H, Hamanaka I, Takahashi Y, Kawaguchi
T. Effect of long-term water immersion or thermal
shock on mechanical propertiesof high-impact
acrylic denture base resins. Dent Mater J 2016;
35(2): 204–209
15. Vallittu PK, Ruyter IE, Ekstrand K. Effect of water
storage on the flexural properties of E-glass and
silica fiber acrylic resin composite. Int J Prosthodont
1998; 11:340–50.
16. Vallittu PK. Effect of 10 years in vitro ageing
on flexural properties of fiber reinforced resin
composites. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20:43-45.
17. Takahashi Y, Chai J, Kawaguchi M. Equilibrium
strengths of denture polymers subjected to long-
term water immersion. Int J Prosthodont 1999;
12:348–52.
18. International Standard. ISO 1567 AMENDMENT 1
for Dentistry—Denture base polymers Amendment
1. Genève, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization; 2003
19. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Shaull KL, Laffoon
JE, Qian F. Flexural and fatigue strengths of denture
base resin. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100:47-51.
20. Smith DC. The acrylic denture. Mechanical
evaluation, mid-line fracture. J Prosthet Dent.
1961;110:257–67
21. Takahashi Y, Hamanaka I, Shimizu H. Flexural
properties of denture base resins subjected to
long-term water immersion. Acta Odontologica
Scandinavica 2013; 71: 716–720.
22. Anusavice KJ, Shen C and Rawls HR. Phillip’s
Science of Dental Materials, 12th ed, WB Sanders:
An imprint of Elsevier; 2013.