Comparison of transverse strength and dimensional variations between die stone, die epoxy resin, and die polyurethane resin.

This study compared transverse strength and dimensional variations of die stone, epoxy resin, and polyurethane resin. The polyurethane resin was tested unfilled, then filled with 20%, 40%, and 60% silica, by weight. Transverse strength was evaluated for five test strips for each material, and an original calibration plate technique closely simulating intraoral conditions was introduced to evaluate dimensional accuracy. Two series of five measurements for dimensional variations were recorded on each test strip. The first series was 15 minutes after removal from mold and the second series of 5 minutes a week later. The results were computed with a parametric ANOVA and Scheffe's test at 95% confidence level (p < or = 0.05). These results confirmed that die stone recorded the least dimensional change but was rigid and brittle, whereas epoxy resin and polyurethane resin had suitable mechanical properties including greater dimensional variations. Incorporating silica filler in polyurethane resins also reduced their transverse strength and sponsored minimal dimensional variations.

[1]  K. Chan,et al.  Effect of microwave oven drying on surface hardness of dental gypsum products. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  H Lee,et al.  Use of the personal computer to design processing conditions for improving dental die accuracy. , 1986, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  T E Donovan,et al.  The dimensional accuracy of improved dental stone, silverplated, and epoxy resin die materials. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  E. Combe,et al.  Notes on dental materials , 1972 .

[5]  E. Doyle The development and use of polyurethane products , 1971 .

[6]  S. Vermilyea,et al.  Evaluation of resin die materials. , 1979, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  D. Stone,et al.  Properties and characteristics of a resin die material. , 1975, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  J. D. Jones,et al.  Compatibility of type IV dental stones with polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. , 1987, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  S. Campbell,et al.  Evaluation of a new epoxy resin die material. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  P. Yaman,et al.  Comparison of three epoxy die materials. , 1986, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  W. Malone,et al.  Dimensional accuracy of epoxy resins and their compatibility with impression materials. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  H. B. Schwartz,et al.  Linear dimensional accuracy of epoxy resin and stone dies. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  E. O. Williams,et al.  Compatibility of reversible hydrocolloid duplicating materials and dental stones. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  W. Johnston,et al.  The effects of a liquid dispersing agent and a microcrystalline additive on the physical properties of type IV gypsum. , 1988, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  S M Schmitt A two-die system for constructing porcelain jacket crowns. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  A. Newman,et al.  Die materials for inlay, crown and bridge work. , 1969, British dental journal.

[17]  R. Schneider,et al.  Microwave oven drying of artificial stone. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  The effects of hollow microsphere fillers on density and impact strength of denture base resins. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  L. Zardiackas,et al.  Effects of vacuum and pressure on accuracy, reproducibility, and surface finish of stone casts made from polyvinyl siloxane. , 1986, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  N. V. Barrett,et al.  Compatibility of agar hydrocolloid duplicating materials with dental stones. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  R. G. Craig Restorative dental materials , 1971 .

[22]  J. Preston,et al.  An investigation of epoxy resin dies. , 1980, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry (Print).