Journal of Dental Science and Medicine
Open Access

Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is the most widely used material for fabricating removable partial or complete dentures; however, it has a relatively low fracture resistance [1,2]. To overcome the low fracture resistance of PMMA, several ways are used for reinforcement. The conventional method involves the use of metal wires, plates or stainless steel mesh as strengtheners of denture base polymers [3,4]. PMMA resins with either organic or inorganic fibers have been tested as suitable materials for prosthodontics [4-9]. Fibers used in polymerfiber composites include glass fibers [5], sapphire whiskers [10], aramid fibers [11,12], carbon fibers [13], Nylon [14], or ultra-highmodulus polyethylene fibers [8]. The inclusion of metal wires and plate reinforcements enhances the strength of PMMA [15], and decreases the likelihood of denture fractures caused by strong biting or impact forces [4]. It also improves its thermal conductivity [15], but leads to poor esthetics for complete dentures [16]. It has been reported that carbon and aramid fibers strengthen PMMA; but they are generally difficult to polish, and may cause an esthetic problem [6,7,11,13,17]. Some investigators have found that the flexural properties of polyethylene fiber-reinforced denture base polymer showed significant increase [18]; whereas, others have found that inclusion of polyethylene fibers did not improve mechanical properties of PMMA resin [8]. Polyethylene fibers provide good esthetic qualities for dental applications; but the process of etching, preparing, and positioning layers of woven fibers may be difficult for the dental office [16,17]. Different types of glass fibers are produced commercially; these include E-glass, S-glass,20 R-glass, V-glass, and Cemfil [19]. Of these, E-glass fiber is claimed to be superior in flexural strength [5,20,21]. Dynamic in vitro tests showed that glass fiber reinforcement increased fatigue resistance of dental appliance up to 100 times compared with fatigue resistance of an unreinforced restoration [22]. By contrast, Tacir et al. [16] concluded that strengthening with glass fibers decreased the flexural strength of the acrylic resin polymers. Glass fibers, like polyethylene fibers, exhibit good esthetic properties [12,17,21-23].

Silanated glass fibers may be the fibers of choice for reinforcing denture base polymers because of their well-documented improvement in fracture resistance and good esthetic quality [21-23]. However, the manufacturing process of glass fibers requires considerable energy consumed and needs additives, which makes it expensive. Thus, it may be necessary to look for an alternative cheaper than glass fibers and enhances the flexural properties of PMMA resin.

Nowadays, both industrial and academic world are centering their attention toward the development of composites reinforced with natural fibers. In particular, among the natural fibers that can be used as reinforcement, the basalt ones represent the more interesting for their properties. Basalt is a natural material that is found in volcanic rocks originated from frozen lava, with a melting temperature comprised between 1500° and 1700°C [24,25]. Chemical analyzing of basalt revealed that SiO2 is the main constituent and Al2O3 is the second one [25].

Basalt fiber was developed by Moscow Research Institute of Glass and Plastic in 1953-1954. It is a high-tech fiber invented by the former Soviet Union after 30 years of research and development, and its first industrial production furnace was completed in 1985 at Ukraine fiber laboratory [26]. This kind of fibers has comparable or better resistance than glass fibers [27], poses no risk to human beings [28], has high chemical stability, and good resistance to alkaline and acids exposure [29]. The manufacturing process of basalt fibers is similar to that of glass fiber, but with less energy consumed and no additives, which makes it inexpensive in comparison with glass fibers [30]. Due to its good properties, basalt fiber has gained increasing attention as a reinforcing material especially compared to traditional glass fibers [27,30].

The purpose of this study was to determine flexural properties of unreinforced heat-polymerized denture base acrylic resin and those reinforced with chopped basalt fibers. The study also aimed to compare the effect of incorporating monomer, silane, or phosphoric acidtreated basalt fibers on flexural properties of Polymer fiber composite. The null hypothesis was that incorporating chopped basalt fibers would not produce differences in the flexural properties of PMMA; and there would not be significant differences in the effect of the three tested methods of basalt fibers treatment on flexural properties of Polymer fiber composite.

A compression molding technique was applied to preparing all specimens. Thirty dental stone molds were prepared in dental flasks using wax patterns of specific dimensions. Wax (Huge Cad Cam Wax, Pearson Lab) discs 98 mm were used to manufacture wax patterns measuring (65 x 10 x 3 mm) by CAD/CAM technology (DWX-51D 5-Axis Dental Milling Machine) [31]. Each wax pattern was invested in dental stone type III (Durguix, Hard natural stone, Protechno, Gerona, Spain). After the final set of the dental stone, the flask was placed in boiling water for 4 to 6 minutes to soften the wax and then it was removed from the water and opened. The residual wax was washed out with a stream of boiling water and the prepared molds were immersed in hot water to remove any trace of impurities and to facilitate the application of separating medium. The mold cavities obtained were used for the preparation of acrylic resin test specimens.

A power analysis (using G ⃰ Power Version 3.1.5) was undertaken to determine the required sample size. Thirty rectangular (65mm long, 10mm wide and 3mm thick) specimens were equally divided into five groups based on reinforcement and fiber treating method. The control group (Group C) consisted of conventional heat-polymerized acrylic resin (Vertex Regular, Vertex dental, Zeist, The Netherland) specimens which were unreinforced with fibers. The remaining four experimental groups were made with the same conventional heat-polymerized acrylic resin, and the same resin reinforced with basalt fibers (Technobasalt, Kyiv, Ukraine) (Figure 1). The basalt fibers were 16 ± 2 μm in diameter and were cut with scissors to the lengths of 5mm [16]. The cut fibers were cleaned in boiling water for 10 minutes and air-dried before use.

Figure 1: Basalt fibers (16 ± 2 μm in diameter).

Group UBF specimens were modified by incorporating an additional fiber reinforcement of untreated basalt fibers.

Group MBF specimens were reinforced with monomer treated basalt fibers. The basalt fibers were soaked in monomer (metyl methacrylate) (Vertex Regular, Vertex dental, Zeist, The Netherland) for 10 minutes to allow for better bonding with the acrylic resin [16,32]; after the fibers were removed from the monomer, excess liquid was allowed to dry.

Group SBF specimens of the same dimensions as above were modified by incorporating silanized basalt fibers. The cleaned fibers were silanated by being dipped into a silane solution (Ultradent Products. USA) for 5 min, and air dried for 40 minutes [8].

Group PhABF specimens were reinforced with basalt fibers which were treated by phosphoric acid 35% (Ultra-Etch, Ultradent, South Jordan, USA) for 5 minutes, and then they were cleaned and air-dried.

After monomer, silane, or phosphoric acid treatment of basalt fibers, the resin and fibers (2% by weight) [12,20] were mixed thoroughly to disperse the fibers.

For control group, the heat-polymerized acrylic resin was mixed according to manufacturer’s instruction. When the mixture reached a dough consistency, it was packed in the mould and trial closure was performed [33]. The final closure was at 24.13 N/mm2 and maintained for 30 min. The acrylic resin was polymerized in water with long polymerization cycle. The polymerizing unit (Hanau Engineering Company, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.) was controlled to raise the temperature to 74˚C at 1 hour, and then kept at 74˚C for 8 hours. After polymerizing and cooling inside the water bath to room temperature, deflasking was carefully completed. Specimens were evaluated to ensure absence of voids or gross irregularities with ×3.5 magnification. Specimens were then finished with 400 and 600-grit sandpaper. The dimensions of all specimens were checked by digital caliper, which can record changes as small as 0.01 mm.

For the remaining experimental groups, the specimens were polymerized and recovered in the same manner as the control group; however, the difference was incorporating basalt fibers to the acrylic polymer before mixing with monomer.

All specimens were stored in distilled water for 7 days, to remove the remaining unreacted monomer [34]. Specimens were labeled on each end before testing.

A 3-point bending test was carried out for the test specimens with a universal testing machine (DY-34 ADAMEL LHOMARGY, FRANCE) at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min (Figure 2). A load was applied by a centrally located rod until fracture occurred. The ultimate transverse strength (TS) was calculated from the formula [35]:

Figure 2: A 3-point bending test by the universal testing machine (DY-34 ADAMEL
LHOMARGY).

TS =3Fl / 2bh2

Where F is the applied load (N) at the highest point of the loaddeflection curve, l is the span length (50.0 mm), b is the width of the test specimen (3 mm), and h is the thickness of the test specimen.

Statistical analysis of the results was carried out with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple comparisons post hoc analysis for test groups, with a significance level of .05.

The mean mechanical test result of each group is shown in (Table 1). The flexural strength of control group (unreinforced with basalt fibers) ranged from 63.40 to 67.60 MPa, with a mean of 65.5 MPa. In group UBF (reinforced with untreated basalt fibers), the flexural strength ranged from 69.20 to 72.70 MPa, with a mean of 70.63 MPa. The MBF group (reinforced with monomer treated basalt fibers) recorded the highest flexural strength; it ranged from 81.20 to 87.30 MPa, with a mean of 84.73 MPa. Incorporating silanized basalt fibers (SBF) increased the flexural strength; it ranged from 73.80 to 77.20 MPa, with a mean of 75.8 MPa. In PhABF group (reinforced with basalt fibers treated by phosphoric acid 35%) the flexural strength ranged from 69 to 70.20 MPa, with a mean of 69.47 MPa. One‑way ANOVA test showed a statistically significant difference between the test groups (P < 0.05). Group C was significantly different from Group MBF and SBF. Group MBF was significantly different from Groups UBF, SBF and PhABF. Group SBF was significantly different from PhABF (Table 2).

Table 1: The mean mechanical test results and standard deviations of test groups.

Table 2: Multiple comparison of all: study for flexural strength (Tukey HSD) groups.

Denture base acrylic resins are subjected to many different stresses. Intra-orally, repeated masticatory forces lead to fracture of a denture base which is a flexural fatigue failure; while extra-orally, high-impact forces can occur if the prosthesis is dropped and subsequently the denture base can fracture [16].

With the increasing interest in finding out suitable solutions in material design to avoid fracture of the denture base, research on natural materials such as basalt has increased at a rapid rate [30]. This study revealed the effect of basalt fiber reinforcement and preparing basalt fiber methods on the flexural properties of PMMA resin.

Results showed that the flexural strength of UBF group was not significantly differed from control group (p>0.05). Thus, there were not any benefits by incorporating basalt fibers in improving flexural strength. However, the study demonstrated that group MBF specimens who were reinforced by monomer treated basalt fibers recorded the highest flexural strength. Impregnating the reinforcements allows the formation of a graded interface between the two different materials (basalt fibers and PMMA) and it may increase the flexural strength of the polymer fiber composite. A previous report [36] suggested that increased flexural strength may be related to how effectively the fibers can be impregnated with the acrylic resin. So that, increased amount of MMA liquid could have induced a degradation effect on the heat-polymerized denture base acrylic resin that may improve the incorporating process of basalt fibers. Incorporating salinized basalt fibers improved the flexural strength of denture base acrylic resin and it may be resulted from chemical attaching effect of silane. Flexural strength of Group SBF specimens were less than of MBF. This can be attributed to the tendency of silane-treated basalt fibers to clump together, accounting for the weakened samples. The results of this study revealed that flexural strength of PhABF specimens was low. Basalt fibers surface was modified by phosphoric acid 35%, but the modification did not contribute to improve the incorporating of fibers into acrylic resin bulk. Weak attaching points may be the initiation and propagation of a crack.

Adding monomer treated basalt fibers is less cost in comparison with adding glass fibers. On the other hand, glass fiber provides better aesthetic qualities than basalt fibers. Therefore, it is preferable to use basalt fibers in the hidden parts of the dentures.

Three-point flexural test, accepted by international standards for polymer materials, including ISO/DIS 1567:1999 Denture base polymers, is the most common technique of measuring flexural properties of denture bases [37]. According to ISO/DIS 1567:1999 flexural strength of heat-polymerized acrylic resin should be no less than 65 MPa [35]. The results of this study demonstrated that the mean flexural strength of all test groups was higher than that the required by ISO/DIS 1567:1999. Thus, all addition methods are suitable for clinical use. However, the flexural strength in Group MBF was significantly higher than that of other groups.

This study involved a limited analysis of a mechanical property for only one heat-polymerized denture base resin. Further research should be conducted to study other denture base resins, and how they could affect other physical and mechanical properties of these materials. The clinical implication of this study is that adding basalt fibers may have a positive effect on the strength of complete dentures. Also, using basalt fibers may save money, because they need less energy consumed and no additives, which makes it economical.

Within the limits of this study, flexural strength of PMMA specimens was positively influenced by adding basalt fibers. Also, preparing method of these fibers may have an effect on the flexural strength. According to the results of this study reinforcement the PMMA with monomer treated basalt fibers can be recommended.

Conflict of Interest

The current research is free of conflict of interest.

1. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR (2013) Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Saunders 475.
2. Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Allen SM, Harrison A (2002) An investigation into the transverse and impact strength of “high strength” denture base acrylic resins. J Oral Rehabil 29: 263-267.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Vallittu PK (1995) A review of methods used to reinforce polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Prosthodont 4: 183-187.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Vallittu PK, Lassila VP (1992) Reinforcement of acrylic resin denture base material with metal or fibre strengtheners. J Oral Rehabil 19: 225-230.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Solnit GS (1991) The effect of methyl methacrylate reinforcement with silane treated and untreated glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent 66: 310-314.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Yazdanie N, Mahood M (1985) Carbon fiber acrylic resin composite: An investigation of transverse strength. J Prosthet Dent 54: 543-547.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Mullarky RH (1985) Aramid fiber reinforcement of acrylic appliances. J Clin Orthod 19: 655-658.

Indexed at, Google Scholar                    

8. Williamson DL, Boyer DB, Aquilino AS, Leary JM (1994) Effect of polyethylene fiber reinforcement on the strength of denture base resins polymerized by microwave energy. J Prosthet Dent 72: 635-638.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Dixon DL, Breeding LC (1992) The transverse strengths of three denture base resins reinforced with polyethylene fibers. J Prosthet Dent 67: 417-419.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ (1992) The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 8: 197-202.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Berrong JM, Weed RM, Young JM (1990) Fracture resistance of Kevlar-reinforced poly (methyl methacrylate) resin: a preliminary study. Int J Prosthodont 3: 931-935.

Indexed at, Google Scholar                    

12. Vallittu PK, Lassila VP, Lappalainen R (1994) Acrylic resin-fiber composite-Part I: the effect of fiber concentration on fracture resistance. J Prosthet Dent 71: 607-612.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

13. DeBoer J, Vermilyea SG, Brady RE (1984) The effect of carbon fibre orientation on the fatigue resistance and bending properties of two denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 51: 119-121.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

14. Matthews E (1955) Nylon as a denture base material. Br Dent J 98: 231-237.
15. Sehajpal SB, Sood VK (1989) Effect of metal fillers on some physical properties of acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 61: 746-751.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

16. Tacir IH, Kama JD, Zortuk M, Eskimez S (2006) Flexural properties of glass fibre reinforced acrylic resin polymers. Aust Dent J 51: 52-56.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

17. Vallittu PK (1996) A review of Fiber-Reinforced Denture Base Resins. J Prosthodont 5: 270-276.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

18. Ladizesky NH, Ho CF, Chow TW (1992) Reinforcement of complete denture bases with continuous high performance polyethylene fibers. J Prosthet Dent 68: 934-939.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

19. John J, Gangadhar SA, Shah I (2001) Flexural strength of heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid, or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent 86: 424-427.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

20. Jacob J, Shivaputrappa GA, Shah I (2001) Flexural strength of heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate denture resin reinforced with glass, aramid or nylon fibers. J Prosthet Dent 86: 424-427.
21. Vallittu PK (1993) Comparison of two different silane compounds used for improving adhesion between fibres and acrylic denture base material. J Oral Rehabil 20: 533-539.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

22. Vallittu PK (1996) Comparison of the in vitro fatigue resistance of an acrylic resin removable partial denture reinforced with continuous glass fibers or metal wires. J Prosthodont 5: 115-121.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

23. Vallittu PK, Narva K (1997) Impact strength of a modified continuous glass fiberpoly (methyl methacrylate). Int J Prosthodont 10: 142-148.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

24. Militky J, Kovacic V (1996) Ultimate mechanical properties of basalt filaments. Text Res J 66: 225-229.

Google Scholar

25. Militky J, Kovačič V, Rubnerová J (2002) Influence of thermal treatment on tensile failure of basalt. Eng Fract Mech 69: 1025-1033.

Google Scholar    


26. Morova N (2013) Investigation of usability of basalt fibres in hot mix asphalt concrete. Constr Build Mater 47: 175-180.

Google Scholar                    

27. Quagliarini E, Monni F, Lenci S, Bondioli F (2012) Tensile characterization of basalt fibre rods and ropes: A first contribution. Constr Build Mater 34: 372-380.

Google Scholar

28. Kogan FM, Nikitina OV (1994) Solubility of chrysotile asbestos and basalt fibres in relation to their fibrogenic and carcinogenic action. Environ Health Perspect 102: 205-206.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

29. Ramachandran BE, Velpari V, Balasubramanian N (1981) Chemical durability studies on basalt fibres. J Mater Sci 16: 3393-3397.

Google Scholar

30. Fiore V, Scalici T, Di Bella G, Valenza A (2015) A review on basalt fibre and its composites. Compos B Eng 74: 74-94.

Google Scholar

31. Dixon DL, Fincher M, Breeding LC, Mueninghoff LA (1995) Mechanical properties of a light-polymerizing provisional restorative material with and without reinforcement fibers. J Prosthet Dent 73: 510-514.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

32. Chow TW, Ladizesky NH, Clarke DA (1992) Acrylic resins reinforced with woven highly drawn linear polyethylene fibres. 2. Water sorption and clinical trials. Aust Dent J 37: 433-438.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

33. Zarb GA, Bolender CL, Eckert SE, Jacob RE, Fenton AH, et al. (2004) Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients (12th edn) Elsevier health Sci 576.
34. Singh K, Sharma SK, Negi P, Kumar M, Rajpurohit D, Khobre P (2016) Comparative evaluation of flexural strength of heat polymerised denture base resins after reinforcement with glass fibres and nylon fibres: an in vitro study. Adv Hum Biol 6: 91-94.

Google Scholar

35. ISO/DIS 1567 working draft 2: dentistry-denture base polymers. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
36. Vallittu PK (1999) Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent 81: 318-326.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

37. Reis JM, Vergani CE, Pavarina AC, Giampaolo ET, MachadoAL (2006) Effect of relining, water storage and cyclic loading on the flexural strength of denture base acrylic resin. J Dent 34: 420-426.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref