Mechanical Properties of the Modified Denture Base Materials and Polymerization Methods: A Systematic Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Amidst growing technological advancements, newer denture base materials and polymerization methods have been introduced. During fabrication, certain mechanical properties are vital for the clinical longevity of the denture base. This systematic review aimed to explore the effect of newer denture base materials and/or polymerization methods on the mechanical properties of the denture base. An electronic database search of English peer-reviewed published papers was conducted using related keywords from 1 January 2011, up until 31 December 2021. This systematic review was based on guidelines proposed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search identified 579 papers. However, the inclusion criteria recognized 22 papers for eligibility. The risk of bias was moderate in all studies except in two where it was observed as low. Heat cure polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and compression moulding using a water bath is still a widely used base material and polymerization technique, respectively. However, chemically modified PMMA using monomers, oligomers, copolymers and cross-linking agents may have a promising result. Although chemically modified PMMA resin might enhance the mechanical properties of denture base material, no clear inferences can be drawn about the superiority of any polymerization method other than the conventional compression moulding technique.

Related collections

Most cited references 62

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E. Mckenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2021)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 1697 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Role of Resin Cement on Bond Strength of Glass-fiber Posts Luted Into Root Canals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis ofIn VitroStudies

RR Moraes, MS Cenci, JA Skupien … (2014)

Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.

0 comments Cited 79 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Materials for chairside CAD/CAM-produced restorations.

R. Giordano (2006)

and Overview. Although the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) seems to be a recent addition to the dental restorative armamentarium, this concept was first investigated more than 35 years ago. CEREC (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) was the first and is the only available chairside system, and it has more than 20 years of use in the dental office. The initial concept had three tenets: esthetic ceramic reconstruction, a single patient visit and minimal tooth reduction (inlays and onlays instead of crowns). The author reviews the materials used for CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations. The structure, properties and clinical success of the materials for full-contour chairside restorations, as well as laboratory-based high-strength all-ceramic restorations are presented. CAD/CAM restorations have demonstrated clinical success owing to a combination of improvements in materials with advances in CAD/CAM systems. Full-contour ceramic restorations fabricated chair-side may reinforce the tooth, providing good long-term clinical success. High-strength milled restorations allow for the use of all-ceramic restorations for multiple-unit posterior and anterior bridges. Examination of the structure, properties and clinical results of CAD/CAM materials supports their use in routine dental practice.