Shear Bond Strength of Denture Teeth to Two Chemically

Different Denture Base Resins after Various Surface

Treatments
Hakan Akin, DDS, PhD,1 Faik Tugut, DDS, PhD,2 Umit Guney, DDS,3 & Turker Akar, DDS3
1
Associate Professor, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Sivas, Turkey
2
Assistant Professor, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Sivas, Turkey
3
Research Assistant, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Sivas, Turkey

Keywords
Eclipse; Er:YAG laser; PMMA; UDMA; shear
bond strength.
Correspondence
Dr. Hakan Akin, Cumhuriyet University,
Faculty of Dentistry, Department of
Prosthodontics, 58140 Sivas, TURKEY.
E-mail: drhknkn@hotmail.com
This study was presented as a poster at the
annual meeting of the World Congress for
Laser Dentistry, Barcelona, Spain, April, 2012
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The authors alone are responsible for the
content and writing of the paper.
Accepted April 14, 2013
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12081
Abstract
Purpose: Debonding of acrylic teeth from the denture base remains a major problem
in prosthodontics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various sur-
face treatments on the shear bond strength of the two chemically different denture base
resins—polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA).
Materials and Methods: Two denture base resins, heat-cured PMMA (Meliodent)
and light-activated UDMA (Eclipse), were used in this study. A total of 60 molar
acrylic denture teeth were randomly separated into four groups (n = 15), according
to surface treatment: acrylic untreated (group AC), Eclipse untreated (group EC),
treated with eclipse bonding agent (group EB), and Er:YAG laser-irradiated eclipse
(group EL). Shear bond strength test specimens were prepared according to the
manufacturers’ instructions. Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test by
a universal testing machine with a 1 mm/min crosshead speed. The data were analyzed
with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests (α =
0.05).
Results: The highest mean bond strength was observed in specimens of group EB, and
the lowest was observed in group EC specimens. A statistically significant difference
in shear bond strength was found among all groups (p < 0.001), except between
groups EC and EL (p = 0.61).
Conclusion: The two chemically different denture base polymers showed different
shear bond strength values to acrylic denture teeth. Laser-irradiation of the adhesive
surface was found to be ineffective on improving bond strength of acrylic denture
teeth to denture base resin. Eclipse bonding agent should be used as a part of denture
fabrication with the Eclipse Resin System.

Various denture base materials and fabrication techniques have
been used for many years. In 1937, polymethyl methacrylate
(PMMA) resin was used with its simple processing technique,
relatively low-cost fabrication process, and adequate esthetic
properties.1,2 However, in addition to the low impact strength
and low fatigue resistance of PMMA,3,4 patient allergic re-
sponses to methyl methacrylate monomer (MMA)5,6 have led
to efforts to produce new materials with better mechanical prop-
erties than PMMA.3,4 Thus, in the early 1980s, light-activated
urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) resin was developed to elim-
inate contact allergies with its simple application.7-10
The first system of light-activated UDMA denture base poly-
mer, known as Triad VLC (Dentsply Trubyte, York, PA), at-
tracted attention as a denture base material with its favorable es-
thetic outcome, biocompatibility, and low bacterial adherence.6
Nevertheless, brittleness and low impact resistance of the ma-
terial has limited its application. A new UDMA denture base
material, known as Eclipse (Dentsply Trubyte), has claimed
to improve physical properties. Machado et al1 reported that
Eclipse showed higher transverse strength than heat-cured
PMMA and Triad VLC resins. Moreover, Eclipse exhibited sig-
nificantly higher surface hardness,6 flexural strength,6-8 flexural
modulus,6 and impact strengths7 than heat-cured PMMA resin.
Debonding acrylic teeth from the denture base remains a
major problem in prosthodontics. The two components (base
and teeth) have a different structure; their different processing
routes are one of the factors contributing to this discrepancy.2
There is no chemical bond between acrylic denture teeth and
Eclipse resin; therefore, mechanical retention is necessary. At-
tempts to improve bond strength between denture base and

152 Journal of Prosthodontics 23 (2014) 152–156 

C 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Akin et al
teeth include mechanical preparation,11 etching or bonding with
chemicals,12-16 priming with MMA liquid,17,18 and wetting or-
ganic solvents of the tooth surface.19,20 Furthermore, the sur-
face of the PMMA can be altered by sandblasting21-26 and laser
irradiation.21,25,27,28 Both manipulations (increased surface area
and mechanical locks) should benefit the bond site and result
in stronger bonds.
Akin et al28 evaluated bonding properties between UDMA
and soft denture liner. Surface treatments were performed on
the surface of the UDMA specimens after light activation. Thus,
liner could penetrate into the irregularities or pits produced by
the surface treatments. Surface treatment should be applied on
denture teeth when evaluating bond strength between UDMA
and acrylic denture teeth. Lasers have different absorption rates
for different materials. Therefore, for denture teeth, different
surface properties could be obtained from UDMA resin. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various sur-
face treatments including bonding agent and laser irradiation
on the shear bond strength of acrylic denture teeth to two chem-
ically different denture base resins—PMMA and UDMA. The
null hypotheses were (1) PMMA and UDMA denture base
resins have similar bond strength to acrylic denture teeth, and
(2) surface treatments are not effective in improving shear bond
strength of the teeth to denture base resins.
Materials and methods
Preparation of acrylic denture teeth
Sixty molar acrylic denture teeth (Samet, Pharma Zahnfabrik,
Kayseri, Turkey) were ground on the ridge-lap area with a
tungsten carbide bur (H129FSQ, Brasseler, Savannah, GA) at
approximately 40,000 rpm with air coolant to provide a uniform
surface for bonding. Their bonding surfaces were arranged in a
5 mm diameter and measured with a digital caliper (Altas 905,
Gedore-Altas, Istanbul, Turkey) to maintain a ±0.03 mm tol-
erance. After initial grinding, acrylic denture teeth specimens
were randomly separated into four groups (n = 15), according
to the surface treatments applied. Group AC—PMMA untreated
(control): No treatment was applied. This group served as an
acrylic control. Group EC—Eclipse untreated (control): No
treatment was applied. This group served as an Eclipse control.
Group EB—bonding for Eclipse: The teeth were treated with
a thin layer of Eclipse Bonding Agent (Eclipse, Dentsply
Trubyte) according to the manufacturer’s recommendation.
Group EL—Er:YAG laser irradiated Eclipse: bonding surfaces
of specimens were irradiated by Er:YAG laser (Smart 2940D
Plus; Deka Laser, Firenze, Italy).
Laser energy was delivered in pulse mode with a 2.94 μm
wavelength. A 4 mm diameter titanium articulated arm trans-
mission system was used with a 10 Hz repetition rate, 300 mJ
energy, 3 W output power, and 700 μs pulse duration of 20
seconds. The distance of application was 10 mm. Bonding sur-
faces of teeth were cooled with the water spray at a 5 ml/min
rate during irradiation.
Preparation of denture base specimens
This study used a heat-cured PMMA resin (Meliodent, Bayer
Dental, Newbury, UK) and light-activated UDMA denture base
Journal of Prosthodontics 23 (2014) 152–156 
C 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Bond Strength of Denture Teeth
Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the test specimen and testing appa-
ratus.
system (Eclipse). Rectangular wax specimens (36 × 12 × 5
mm3 ) were prepared, and teeth were fixed to them. Silicone
molds were prepared with the wax specimens. The heat-cured
acrylic shear test specimens were prepared in the molds in
denture flasks and cured in a manner similar to that used in
conventional denture construction. The heat-cured acrylic resin
was processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
After the acrylic shear test specimens were removed, finishing
was performed.
Eclipse baseplate resin was preheated for 2 minutes, and the
silicone mold for 10 minutes, in an Eclipse Conditioning Oven
(Dentsply Trubyte) heated to 55◦ C to allow for easier adapta-
tion of the material. The separating agent (Al-Cote, Dentsply
Trubyte) was then applied to the mold, and the warmed resin
was adapted into the mold using finger pressure. At that time,
setup resin was flowed between the teeth and the base with a
hot instrument (Electric Waxer, Dentsply Trubyte). After cool-
ing, the specimens were removed from the silicone mold, and
any excess from around the teeth was removed. These speci-
mens were warmed in the oven (Eclipse Conditioning Oven,
Dentsply Trubyte) at 55◦ C for 1 hour, and coated with air
barrier coating (Eclipse ABC, Dentsply Trubyte) to prevent
inhibition of polymerization by oxygen. The specimens were
processed in a light-processing unit (Eclipse Processing Unit,
Dentsply Trubyte) for 10 minutes. A total of 60 shear test
specimens were obtained using this method. A schematic di-
agram of a test specimen can be seen in Figure 1. Specimens
were stored in distilled water at 37◦ C for 48 hours before the
test.
Shear bond strength test
The specimens were mounted in the custom jig of a universal
testing machine (Lloyd LF Plus, Ametek Inc., Lloyd Instru-
ments, Leicester, UK), and load was applied to the adhesive
interface at a constant 1 mm/min crosshead speed until failure.
The maximum force to produce fracture was recorded, and the
bond strength (S) values (expressed in MPa) were calculated
using the formula S = F/A, where F is the force (in N) and
A is the adhesive area (in mm2 ). Moreover, modes of failure
were visually determined for every specimen after testing and
categorized into one of three categories: adhesive failure refers
to total separation at the interface between the acrylic denture
153
Bond Strength of Denture Teeth Akin et al

Table 1 Shear bond strengths in each group of specimens presented
as means and standard deviations
Groups N Mean (MPa)
Group AC 15 12.79a
Group EC 15 6.25b
Group EB 15 17.26c
Group EL 15 7.12b
Groups with same superscript letters not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Table 2 Mode of failure in each group
Groups N Adhesive failure Cohesive failure
Group AC 15 – –
Group EC 15 14 – 1
Group EB 15 8 –
Group EL 15 11 – 4
tooth and base material; cohesive failure refers to a full break
in the base material or tooth; mixed failure refers to both. In ad-
dition, the mean value and standard deviation of the specimens
were statistically evaluated by one-way ANOVA and post hoc
Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05).
Results
Statistical results of the one-way ANOVA for shear bond
strength measurements of the groups are summarized in Table 1
(df = 3, MS = 314.67, F = 110.247, p < 0.05). The highest
mean bond strength was observed in specimens of group EB,
and the lowest was observed in group EC specimens. Tukey’s
HSD test showed that a statistically significant difference in
shear bond strength was found between groups AC and EC,
EB, and EL (p < 0.001). Analysis of the data also revealed no
significant difference in bond strength between groups EC and
EL (p = 0.61); however, a significant difference was found be-
tween groups EC and EB (p < 0.001). Furthermore, modes of
failure are presented in Table 2. In groups EC, EB, and EL ad-
hesive failures were the predominant failure mode (93%, 53%,
73%, respectively); however, group AC specimens resulted in
100% mixed failure. No cohesive failures were observed in any
group.
Discussion
The results obtained in the present study clearly demonstrate
that heat-cured PMMA denture base resin without any surface
treatment exhibited a higher shear bond strength than light-
activated UDMA denture base resin without any surface treat-
ment, by which the first hypothesis was rejected. In addition,
bonding application on the tooth surface improved the bond
strength, whereas altering the tooth surface with an Er:YAG
laser was not effective in increasing shear bond strength of an
acrylic denture tooth to a denture base resin. Therefore, the
second hypothesis was partially rejected.
Consistent with the present study, Fletcher-Stark et al9
reported that acrylic denture teeth surface treated with
Eclipse Bonding Agent demonstrated significantly higher bond
strengths than denture teeth without a bonding agent. More-
over, Hayakawa et al13 suggested that a bonding agent should
be applied when visible light-polymerized denture base resin
SD
is used with acrylic denture teeth. It could be explained that
1.7 monomer containing the greater amount of cross-linking agent
0.9 may improve the formation of a more extensive interpenetrat-
2.28 ing polymer network (IPN).29-31 Eclipse Bonding Agent con-
1.55 sists of methyl acetate, and Eclipse set-up resin consists of
urethane-based oligomers. The mechanism of the network be-
tween methyl acetate and urethane-based oligomers should be
investigated in future studies using SEM analysis. Furthermore,
Saavedra et al17 reported that application of an MMA-based
Mixed failure bonding agent improved bond strength between acrylic den-
ture teeth and denture base resin. In addition, Takahashi et al11
15 reported that application of dichloromethane resulted in a sig-
nificant improvement in bond strength of acrylic denture teeth
7
to denture base resin. Furthermore, due to chemical bonding
between the acrylic tooth and the acrylic denture base, bond
strength of acrylic denture teeth to heat-cured PMMA denture
base resin was found to be higher than to light-activated UDMA
resin. This result is in accordance with the studies of Clancy
et al,14 Kawara et al,15 Cunningham,16 and Fletcher-Stark
et al.9
The type of denture base resin14,15 and acrylic tooth
material,11 modification of ridge-lap area, or application of
bonding agent2,9,11,13,17 are the main parameters affecting bond
strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin. Modification
of the ridge-lap area can be achieved through sandblasting
and laser irradiation. Sandblasting and laser irradiation have
been used to alter the surface of the PMMA with the inten-
tion of providing increased surface area and mechanical locks.
Theoretically, both manipulations (increased surface area and
mechanical locks) should benefit the bond site and result in
stronger bonds.21 Storer23 and Usumez et al24 reported that
sandblasting the acrylic resin surface before the placement of
a resilient lining material improved the strength of the bond
with a slightly irregular surface providing mechanical locking
for the soft material. In addition, Akin et al22 reported that
120 μm Al2 O3 particles are the best particle size to improve
bond strength between PMMA and liner. To the contrary, Amin
et al25 and Jacobsen et al26 reported that roughening acrylic
resin base by alumina abrasion before applying a lining ma-
terial had a weakening effect on the bond. Furthermore, Akin
et al21 reported that altering the PMMA surface by Er:YAG laser
significantly increased the bond strengths in PMMA/silicone
specimens, whereas sandblasting before applying a lining ma-
terial had a weakening effect on the bond. In addition, they
demonstrated that other laser systems including Nd:YAG and
KTP lasers are ineffective for strengthening the bond between
acrylic denture base and soft liner. Moreover, Tugut et al27 re-
ported that Er:YAG laser treatment at 10 Hz, 3 W, and 300 mJ
with a long pulse duration (700 μs) on the adhesive surface
of PMMA effectively increased tensile bond strength between
resilient soft liner and the denture base. In another study,28
Er:YAG laser treatment at 10 Hz, 3 W, and 300 mJ with a long
pulse duration was shown to be an effective method for improv-
ing bond strength of UDMA and liner. Therefore, in the present
study, Er:YAG laser surface treatment with Tugut et al’s27 and
Akin et al’s28 parameters were used.

154 Journal of Prosthodontics 23 (2014) 152–156 

C 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Akin et al
The Eclipse system is composed of three types of resins—
baseplate, setup, and contour resins. First, a processed baseplate
is light polymerized, and then the teeth are added with the setup
resin. Subsequently, the contour resin is used to simulate the
gingival tissues. The manufacturer recommended a 10-minute
curing time with a wavelength of 400 to 500 nm high-intensity
visible light for baseplate thicknesses of 8 mm or less.6 Further-
more, the modifications (control, bonding agent application,
and laser irradiation) were performed on only one of the den-
ture base materials (Eclipse) because debonding acrylic teeth
from light-activated UDMA denture base resin remains a ma-
jor problem due to the fact that there is no chemical bond be-
tween them. Therefore, this is a disadvantage for light-activated
UDMA denture base resin against conventional PMMA denture
base resin. In the present study, it was expected that this disad-
vantage could be tolerated by using surface modifications. Thus,
surface modifications were only performed on light-activated
UDMA denture base resin, and PMMA denture base resin was
used only as control group.
On the other hand, when failure modes were assessed, bond-
ing agent-applied specimens showed 53% adhesive failure.
Nevertheless, this adhesive failure proportion was raised for
control and laser-irradiated specimens (93% and 73%, respec-
tively). These results are in accordance with those of Fletcher-
Stark et al.9 Consistent with the bond strength values in EC
specimens, the most adhesive failures were seen in these speci-
mens. These findings indicate a direct proportion between bond
strength value and percentage of denture base cohesive failure.
Furthermore, the higher bond strength value and the lower per-
centage of acrylic denture tooth cohesive failure were seen.
All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37◦ C for
48 hours before testing. One of the limitations of this study was
that thermocycling and long-term water storage were not per-
formed. Although these storage types are important to simulate
clinical conditions, the results of this study may be beneficial
for the comparison of the effects of different surface treatment
methods.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, Eclipse Bonding Agent
was shown to be useful as a part of denture fabrication with the
Eclipse Resin System. Eclipse Bonding Agent enables Eclipse
resin to compensate for its disadvantage of acrylic tooth bond-
ing when compared to the PMMA denture base resin. Laser
irradiation of the denture teeth adhesive surface did not effec-
tively improve bond strength of denture teeth to denture base
resin.
References
1. Machado C, Sanchez E, Azer SS, et al: Comparative study of the
transverse strength of three denture base materials. J Dent 2007;
35:930-933
2. Patil SB, Naveen BH, Patil NP: Bonding acrylic teeth to acrylic
resin denture bases: a review. Gerodontology 2006;23:131-139
3. Vallittu PK, Narva K: Impact strength of a modified continuous
glass fiber poly(methyl methacrylate). Int J Prosthodont 1997;
10:142-148
Journal of Prosthodontics 23 (2014) 152–156 
C 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Bond Strength of Denture Teeth
4. Kim S-H, Watts DC: The effect of reinforcement with woven
E-glass fibers on the impact strength of complete dentures
fabricated with high-impact acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent
2004;91:274-280
5. Pfeiffer P, An N, Schmage P: Repair strength of hypoallergenic
denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:292-
301
6. Ali IL, Yunus N, Abu-Hassan MI: Hardness, flexural strength,
and flexural modulus comparisons of three differently cured
denture base systems. J Prosthodont 2008;17:545-549
7. Machado AL, Puckett AD, Breeding LC, et al: Effect of
thermocycling on the flexural and impact strength of
urethane-based and high-impact denture base resins.
Gerodontology 2012;29:e318-e323
8. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Shaull KL, et al: Flexural and
fatigue strengths of denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent
2008;100:47-51
9. Fletcher-Stark ML, Chung K-H, Rubenstein JE, et al: Shear bond
strength of denture teeth to heat- and light-polymerized denture
base resin. J Prosthodont 2011;20:52-59
10. Ahmad F, Dent M, Yunus N: Shear bond strength of two
chemically different denture base polymers to reline materials. J
Prosthodont 2009;18:596-602
11. Takahashi Y, Chai J, Takahashi T, Habu T: Bond strength of
denture teeth to denture base resins. Int J Prosthodont 2000;
13:59-65
12. Rached RN, Del Bel Cury AA: Heat-cured acrylic resin repaired
with microwave-cured one: bond strength and surface texture. J
Oral Rehabil 2001;28:370-375
13. Hayakawa I, Hirano S, Nagao M, et al: Adhesion of a new light
polymerized denture base resin to resin teeth and denture base
materials. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:561-568
14. Clancy JMS, Hawkins LF, Keller JC, et al: Bond strength and
failure analysis of light-cured denture resins bonded to denture
teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:315-324
15. Kawara M, Carter JM, Ogle RE, et al: Bonding of plastic teeth to
denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:566-571
16. Cunningham JL: Shear bond strength of resin teeth to heat-cured
and light-cured denture base resin. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:
312-316
17. Saavedra G, Valandro LF, Leite FP, et al: Bond strength of
acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface
conditioning methods before and after thermocycling. Int J
Prosthodont 2007;20:199-201
18. Papazoglou E, Vasilas AI: Shear bond strengths for composite
and autopolymerized acrylic resins bonded to acrylic resin
denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:573-578
19. Rached RN, Powers JM, Del Bel Cury AA: Repair strength of
auto-polymerizing, microwave, and conventional
heat-polymerized acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:79-82
20. Minami H, Suzuki S, Minesaki Y, et al: In vitro evaluation of the
influence of repairing condition of denture base resin on the
bonding of autopolymerizing resins. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:
164-170
21. Akin H, Tugut F, Mutaf B, et al: Effect of different surface
treatments on tensile bond strength of silicone based soft denture
liner. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:783-788
22. Akin H, Tugut F, Mutaf B, et al: Effect of sandblasting with
different size of aluminum oxide particles on tensile bond
strength of resilient liner to denture base. Cumhuriyet Dent J
2011;14:5-11
23. Storer R: Resilient denture base materials. Part 1, introduction
and laboratory evaluation. Br Dent J 1962;113:195-
203
155
Bond Strength of Denture Teeth
24. Usumez A, Inan O, Aykent F: Bond strength of a silicone lining
material to alumina-abraded and lased denture resin. J Biomed
Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2004;71:196-200
25. Amin WM, Fletcher AM, Ritchie GM: The nature of the
interface between polymethyl methacrylate denture base
materials and soft lining materials. J Dent 1981;9:336-346
26. Jacobsen NL, Mitchell DL, Johnson DL, et al: Lased and
sandblasted denture base surface preparations affecting resilient
liner bonding. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:153-158
27. Tugut F, Akin H, Mutaf B, et al: Strength of the bond between a
silicone lining material and denture resin after Er:YAG laser
treatments with different pulse durations and levels of energy.
Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:281-285
156 Journal of Prosthodontics 23 (2014) 152–156 
Akin et al
28. Akin H, Tugut F, Guney U, et al: Tensile bond strength of
silicone-based soft denture liner to two chemically different
denture base resins after various surface treatments. Lasers Med
Sci 2013;28:119-123
29. Vallittu PK, Ruyter IE: The swelling phenomenon of acrylic
resin polymer teeth at the interface with denture base polymers. J
Prosthet Dent 1997;78:194-199
30. Murat MM, Ruyter IE: Evaluation of adhesion of chairside hard
relining materials to denture base polymers. J Prosthet Dent
2005;94:445-452
31. Büyükyilmaz S, Ruyter IE: The effects of polymerization
temperature on the acrylic resin denture base-tooth bond. Int J
Prosthodont 1997;10:49-54
C 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists