The relation between impact strength and flexural strength of dental materials.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a relation between impact strength and flexural strength of different composite and ceramic materials used in dental restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The three-point-bending test was used to determine the flexural strength and flexural modulus, and the Dynstat impact test was used to determine the impact strength of different composite and ceramic dental materials. The relation between the flexural strength and impact strength was mathematically investigated and a three-dimensional finite element analysis model of the impact test set-up was created to verify these results. RESULTS: We found a relation between the impact strength, adU, the flexural strength, σ, and the flexural modulus, E, which can be represented by the formula: adU=λDK(σ2/E), where λDK is a constant dependent on the test set-up. CONCLUSION: The obtained impact strength of materials is specific to the test set-up and dependent on the geometric configuration of the test set-up and the specimen thickness. The clinical significance of this investigation is that roughness and fatigue have far more influence on the impact strength than the flexure strength.

Properties of an In Vivo Fractured Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) Cranioplasty After 15 Years.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, a 27-year-old man was diagnosed with a meningioma with skull bone involvement. A craniectomy was performed and a CMW-3 poly(methyl methacrylate) cranioplasty was manually manufactured to reconstruct the remaining cranial defect. In 2016, he complained about progressive neurologic impairment. A computed tomography scan revealed that the cranioplasty had fractured into 4 dislocated pieces. Removal was indicated, and during the same operation a polyetheretherketone patient-specific implant was inserted. METHODS: The fractured cranioplasty was compared with freshly prepared CMW-3 specimens to determine whether the material properties had changed during 15 years in vivo. Gel permeation chromatography, microcomputed tomography, and flexural strength tests were performed. The fracture itself was analyzed using finite element analysis. RESULTS: The polydispersity index and molecular weight were not significantly different for the fractured cranioplasty and CMW-3. The fractured cranioplasty contained a total porosity of 10.7%, fresh CMW-3 cured at atmospheric pressure contained 4.1%, and 0.06% when cured at 2.2 bar. The flexural strength of the CMW-3 cured at 2.2 bar was significantly higher than both the fractured cranioplasty and CMW-3 cured at atmospheric pressure. Finite element analysis showed stress of 12.2 MPa under a load of 100 N on a weak spot. CONCLUSIONS: This ex vivo study shows that CMW-3 after 15 years in vivo was not influenced in molecular weight or flexural strength. However, the design of the implant and the handling of the poly(methyl methacrylate) seem to be important factors to improve mechanical properties of cranial reconstructions.

Autologous Bone Is Inferior to Alloplastic Cranioplasties: Safety of Autograft and Allograft Materials for Cranioplasties, a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Currently, various materials are routinely used for cranioplasty after decompressive craniectomy, each with their own features, potential benefits, and harms. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review available literature about safety (infection, resorption, and removal) of different materials used for cranioplasty for any indication. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library was performed for relevant studies published up to January 2017. Study quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool, and a set of 27 predetermined parameters was extracted by 2 investigators independently for further analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 2 randomized, 14 prospective, and 212 retrospective studies, totaling 10,346 cranioplasties in which 1952 (18.9%) complications were reported in patients between 0 and 90 years old. Overall, study quality was low and heterogeneity was large. Graft infections and resorption were most prevalent: overall infection rate was 5.6%. Autologous cranioplasties showed an infection rate of 6.9% versus 5.0% in combined alloplastic materials, including poly(methyl methacrylate) with 7.8%. Resorption occurred almost exclusively in autologous cranioplasties (11.3%). The greatest removal rate was reported for autologous cranioplasties (overall: 10.4%), which was significantly greater than that of combined alloplastic materials (overall: 5.1%; risk difference = 0.052 [95% confidence interval: 0.039-0.066]; NNT = 19 [95% confidence interval: 15-25]). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence on the safety of cranioplasty materials is limited due to a large diversity in study conduct, patients included, and outcomes reported. Autografts appear to carry a greater failure risk than allografts. Future publications concerning cranioplasties will benefit by a standardized reporting of surgical procedures, outcomes, and graft materials used.