Archive : Volume - 8, Issue - 12, Month - December
1 EFFECT OF USING POLYETHER ETHER KETONE VERSUS METAL MESH REINFORCEMENT ON FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF MAXILLARY POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE DENTURE BASES. AN IN-VITRO STUDY.
- Ahmed Abd El Gawad Abdelh Moussa* ,
- Amal Rekaby Taha ,
- Fardos Nabil Rezik ,
- Reham B Osman
- Abstract
- Show Article
- Download : 213
- Google Citation
- Journal DOI : 10.46624/BJMHR.2021.V8.I12.003
- Certificate
Abstract : ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different reinforcing materials on the fracture resistance of maxillary dentures reinforced by either PEEK or metal framework meshes. The weight of reinforced dentures in both groups was also calculated.
Methodology: 14 reinforced complete dentures were fabricated with similar denture base thickness and same arrangement of teeth by duplication of trial denture bases through custom made stone mold and silicon mold for teeth arrangement. The dentures were divided into 2 groups. In the first group, the dentures were reinforced with metal meshes while in other group PEEK meshes of the same thickness was used for the reinforcement. Mesh reinforcement in both groups were digitally designed by EXO-CAD dental software on scanned cast, printed, and then fabricated in either of the two materials: metal or PEEK. Each denture was subjected to load from a universal testing machine using a fissure load applicator at mid palatal area at speed of 5mm/min. The load at failure manifested by sharp drop to below 50% on load-deflection curve was recorded in Newton. Before the load application, the weight of each denture in both groups was evaluated. All collected data were statistically analyzed. Fracture pattern of dentures in both groups was visually assessed.
Results: A statistically significant difference (P= 0.004) in the maximum average load the dentures could withstand before fracture was found between the two groups. Metal reinforced maxillary dentures could withstand maximum average load of 1686.63 ±325.06 N with corresponding value of 1160.22 ±197.21 (N) for PEEK reinforced dentures. Also using PEEK mesh decreased weight of denture by 26% compared to metal reinforced denture.
Conclusions: PEEK mesh with thickness of 0.7 to 0.9 mm did not influence the fracture strength of complete dentures compared to metal mesh with the same thickness.
Keyword : PEEK, reinforcement, maxillary ,denture.
Login
Loading....
Author Guideline
Copyright Form
News Update
Archive List
- Volume-11
- Volume-10
- January 2023 Issue 1
- January 2023 Issue 1
- February 2023 Issue 2
- March 2023 Issue 3
- March 2023 Issue 3
- April 2023 Issue 4
- April 2023 Issue 4
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- June 2023 Issue 6
- June 2023 Issue 6
- July 2023 Issue 7
- July 2023 Issue 7
- August 2023 Issue 8
- August 2023 Issue 8
- September 2023 Issue 9
- October 2023 Issue 10
- November 2023 Issue 11
- December 2023 Issue 12
- Volume-9
- January 2022 Issue 1
- February 2022 Issue 2
- March 2022 Issue 3
- April 2022 Issue 4
- May 2022 Issue 5
- June 2022 Issue 6
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- August 2022 Issue 8
- September 2022 Issue 9
- October 2022 Issue 10
- October 2022 Issue 10
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- December 2022 Issue 12
- Volume-8
- January 2021 Issue 1
- February 2021 Issue 2
- February 2021 Issue 2
- March 2021 Issue 3
- April 2021 Issue 4
- May 2021 Issue 5
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- July 2021 Issue 7
- August 2021 Issue 8
- September 2021 Issue 9
- October 2021 Issue 10
- November 2021 Issue 11
- December 2021 Issue 12
- Volume-7
- January 2020 Issue 1
- January 2020 Issue 1
- February 2020 Issue 2
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- April 2020 Issue 4
- April 2020 Issue 4
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- July 2020 Issue 7
- August 2020 Issue 8
- September 2020 Issue 9
- October 2020 Issue 10
- November 2020 Issue 11
- December 2020 Issue 12
- December 2020 Issue 12
- Volume-6
- January 2019 Issue 1
- February 2019 Issue 2
- March 2019 Issue 3
- April 2019 Issue 4
- April 2019 Issue 4
- May 2019 Issue 5
- May 2019 Issue 5
- June 2019 Issue 6
- June 2019 Issue 6
- July 2019 Issue 7
- July 2019 Issue 7
- August 2019 Issue 8
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- October 2019 Issue 10
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- December 2019 Issue 12
- Volume-5
- January 2018 Issue 1
- January 2018 Issue 1
- February 2018 Issue 2
- March 2018 Issue 3
- April 2018 Issue 4
- May 2018 Issue 5
- June 2018 Issue 6
- July 2018 Issue 7
- August 2018 Issue 8
- September 2018 Issue 9
- September 2018 Issue 9
- October 2018 Issue 10
- October 2018 Issue 10
- November 2018 Issue 11
- December 2018 Issue 12
- December 2018 Issue 12
- Volume-4
- January 2017 Issue 1
- February 2017 Issue 2
- February 2017 Issue 2
- March 2017 Issue 3
- April 2017 Issue 4
- April 2017 Issue 4
- May 2017 Issue 5
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- July 2017 Issue 7
- August 2017 Issue 8
- August 2017 Issue 8
- September 2017 Issue 9
- October 2017 Issue 10
- November 2017 Issue 11
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- Volume-3
- January 2016 Issue 1
- February 2016 Issue 2
- March 2016 Issue 3
- April 2016 Issue 4
- May 2016 Issue 5
- June 2016 Issue 6
- June 2016 Issue 6
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- August 2016 Issue 8
- September 2016 Issue 9
- October 2016 Issue 10
- October 2016 Issue 10
- November 2016 Issue 11
- November 2016 Issue 11
- December 2016 Issue 12
- Volume-2
- Volume-1
Statastics
Download of Articles
115,503