Gregory i .

Polyzois, DDS, Dr Dent, MScD

Assistant Professor
Alkibiades /. Zissis, DDS, Dr Dent
Aiitant Professor

The Effect of
Glutaraldehyde and
Microwave Disinfection on
Some Properties of Acrylic
Denture Resin

Stavros A. YannihaUs, DDS

Doctoral Student
Department of Praithodonlics
School of Dentistry
Llniversity of Athens
Greece

This study evaluated the effect of disinfection methods on the dimensional

stability, flexural properties, and microhardness of a heat-poiymerized
denture acrylic resin. A 1-and 12-hour immersion period in 2% alkaline
glutaraldehyde, and 3- and 1 5-minLites exposure to microwaves were
employed as disinfection or sterilization procedures. Storage in water for 1
and 12 hours were used as the control. For each procedure 10 specimens
were used. The results indicated that the linear changes observed were of no
clinical importance. The same conclusion can be drawn for fiexural
properties and microhardness. The microwave method is a useful alternative
to immersion disinfection, Int ! Prostbodont 1995;8:I5O-154.

1. Heat
a. dry heat (ie, 1 6 0 ^ for 1 hour)
b. autoclave with steam at 1 2 r C and 15 psi
pressure for 30 minutes
c. unsaturated chemical vapor (ie, at 127'C
and 25 psi for 20 minutes)
d. boiling water for 30 minutes
2. Chemical
a. liquid (ie, immersion in alkaline glutaraldebyde 2% for 10 hours, immersion in 1 %
solution hypochlorite for 10 hours)
b. gaseous (ethylene-oxide)

he increased prevalence of some infectious

diseases, ie. Hepatitis B, AIDS, etc, alerted the
public opinion to infection control during dental
service. A common practice for avoiding cross
infection is the sterilization of all items contaminated directly or indirL'Ctly with blood or saliva.
This can be easily carried out in other disciplines
of dentistry, but is sometimes difficult in
prosthodontics. Impressions, trays, casts, and prostheses are all potential sources of cross contamination to and from patients, clinical personnel, and
dental technicians.'"=
This area of infection control was given little
attention prior to 1985, when the ADA published
"The guidelines for the infection control in the
dental office and the commercial dental laboratory."*' While many items used in prosthodontics
can be sterilized, others (eg, wax registration bases,
articulators, pumice) may not be, and remain a
potential hazard in clinical practice.'
Disinfection methods are less lethal than sterilization and are only used when sterilization cannot
be carried out. The concept of universal instrument
sterilization, "if it can be sterilized, sterilize it,"" is
valid. Sterilization methods used In dentistry
include:"

Disinfection methods include' (a) immersion in

2% alkaline glutaraldehyde for 10 minutes, Ibj
immersion in 1 % sodium hypochlorite for 10 to 30
minutes, and (c) immersion in 3% aqueous
formaldehyde for 30 minutes.
Microwaves are claimed to be an alternative to
these Iraditional sterilization-disinfection methods.'
Several studies"" have shown that the exposure of
contaminated items to microwaves is lethal to
many microorganisms. FHowever, the method by
which sterilization occurs is obscure. Some investigators believe sterilization is the result of dielectric
heating, while others feel that intracellular changes
occur.'"-"
Microwave sterilization of metallic objects
Reprint requests: Or Gregory L. Polyzois, Department of
demands a specially designed oven with a radarProsthodontics, Division ol Removable Prosthodontics, School
absorbent material to reduce reflection of the
of Dentistry, University of Athens, 2 Thivon Street. 11527
waves back to the magnetron, and a device that
Athens, Greece.

Thelnternatioriai

150

Polyzois el al

Cliitjrdidehvle Jnd Microwaw Disinfection of Atrylic Re

provides rotation in the horizontal and vertical

planes to counteract the effect of "cold spots" lacking microwave energy."
Rohrer and Buiard' first reported on microwave
sterilization of various dental instruments and the
effect of m i c r o w a v e sterilization on acrylic resin
dentures. They found that contaminated dentures
can be sterilized in a short time. FHowever, little
information is available concerning the effect of
disinfection methods upon the physicomechanical
properties of denture base resins.''-"
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
effect of the glutaraldehyde and microwave disinfection method on the dimensional stability, hardness, and flexural properties of a heat-polymerized
denture base acrylic resin.

Fig 1

Monsanto bending jig.

Materials and Methods

Specimen

Preparation

Testing Conditions

Sixty rectangular specimens 65 x 10 X 2.5

( 0.05 mm] of a heat-polymerized resin (Paladon
55, Kulzer, GmbFH, Friedrichdorf, Germany) were
prepared using microwave processing. The heatpolymerized resin was mixed and packed in special microwave flasks (FRP flasks, GC International,
Tokyo, Japan) according to manufacturer's instructions, and processed for 3 minutes at 500 W in a
microwave oven (Model HF 1210, Siemens
GmbFH, Germany).
The flasks were bench cooled before opening.
Flash and excess were removed by hand polishing
both sides on a Buehler polishing machine
(Ecomet III, Buehler Ltd, Evanston, IL) using 600
grit silicon carbide paper. The specimens were
then stored in distilled water at 37'G for 24 hours
prior to disinfection.
Disinfection

Fach specimen was evaluated first for linear

changes, then for flexural properties, and finally for
hardness. A l l tests were carried out at room temperature (21 C).
Dimensional

Stability

The resulting linear changes were estimated by

making measurements across the longest side (65
mm) of each specimen after processing (Mi), before
the disinfection procedure (M;), and after the procedure (Ms), using a digital caliper accurate to 0.01
mm (Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan). Five readings for
each measurement were made and the mean value
reported. The coefficients of variations never
exceeded 0.1 7o. The percentage difference
between M,, M;, and Mj represented the resulting
linear changes.

Methods
Flexural Properties

For glutaraldehyde disinfection, specimens were

immersed in a solution of 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde (Cidex-7, Johnson & lohnson. East Windsor,
NJ) for 1 hour (A,) or 12 hours (A,). For the
microwave disinfection, the specimens were
placed in the microwave oven for 3 minutes at 500
W (B,) or 15 minutes at 500 W (B..). A cup filled
with 150 mL water was placed into the oven during the disinfection time to protect the magnetron.
These microwave schedules are stated as being
adequate for disinfection and sterilization-"'''-'"'
Specimens tested as controls were immersed in
water for 1 hour (C) and 12 hours iO). Each group
(A,, Ai, Bi, B:, G,, C:) consisted of 10 specimens.

The flexural strength of the specimens was measured using a three-point-bend test on a Monsanto
(Model TIO, Swindon, UK) testing machine, using
the Monsanto bending jig T G I 68 (Fig 1 ). The distance between the supporting wedges was 50 m m ,
and a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min was used. The
values of flexural strength (S| and modulus of elasticity (E) in MPa were computed by the following
equations:

S=

3 PL

w h e r e P is the l o a d at f r a c t u r e ( N ) , L is t h e

151

The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Glutaraldeliyde ,ind Microwave Disinfeciion of Acryli

Polyzoi e[ al

Table 1 Percentage Linear Changes After Storage in

Water Bath 24 Hours (n = 10)
Group

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

A,
A.
B,
B.

0,038
0,037
0,040
0,049
0,044
0.041

0.012
0.014
0.007
0.012
0.011
0.016

0.004
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.005

c,
c.

The flexural strength ranged from 91,29 MPa (B2)

to 100,63 MPa (A,) and was found to be significant
among groups (Table 3).
The modulus of elasticity and deflection at break
were found not to be statistically different (Tables 4
and 5).
Microhardness ranged from 19,26 to 19.98 and
was statistically different among groups (Table 6),

A one-way analysis ot variance showed Itial no signiticani difference ivas

indicalBd between groiips.F = 1.22: a/= 5-54; P^ 3

Discussion
No reports were found in the available literature
using the same materials and testing protocol that
might allow a direct comparison to this study.
Some authors reported using similar disinfection
and testing procedures.
It is well established that storage of acrylic resin in
water induces linear change,'^ The small expansion
recorded (up to 0,05%) confirms this fact (Table 1),
The linear expansion of up to 0,03% partially compensates the overall polymerization shrinkage
(Table 2). The finding that microwave disinfectionsterilization procedures produced negligible dimensional changes (-0.005% to 0.009%) is in agreement
with a previous report by Burns et al,"' who found
dimensional changes, shrinkage up to 0,03%, of
cylindrical specimens (36 mm long, 6 mm diameter)
after 15 minutes of microwave exposure.
Results of this study also coincide with the first
report on denture microwave sterilization by
Rohrer and Bulard,' who found that dentures subjected to microwaves for up to 16 minutes showed
no dimensional changes when evaluated by analyzing lhe fit of the denture into impressions that
had been made into die stone. No data were provided to support their finding,
Shen et al'" studied the effect of glutaraldehyde
base disinfectants (alkaline, phenol buffered) on
flexural strength and rigidity of denture base resins
and reported that the flexural strength was not
affected by immersion time (up to 12 hours) or the
type of disinfectant. However, rigidity was significantly affected by the immersion time and the type
of disinfectant. The present study confirms findings
concerning fiexural strength, but is in disagreement
concerning rigidity.
Asad et al'* evaluated the effects of long-term
immersion (7 days) on the flexural properties of
cross linked and noncross linked denture base
resins. They used chlorexidine, alkaline glutaraldehyde, and alcohol-based disinfectant solutions,
and found that the modulus of rupture (flexural
strength) and modulus of elasticity remained unaffected after a 7-day immersion, concurring with
the results reported herein.

length between the jig wedges (50 mm), b is the

width, and d is the thickness of the specimen; and.

E =

L'm

where L is the length between the jig wedges (50

mm), b is the width, d is the thickness of the specimen, and m is the slope of the tangent to the initial
straight line portion of the load, deflection curve.
The deflection was measured from plotted
curves representing load against crosshead displacement until failure of each specimen. A correction factor (5:30), representing the ratio of
crosshead speed to chart speed, was used to calculate the deflection from the displacement parts of
the plots.
Hardness

Hardness testing was performed using on a randomly chosen portion of the specimen following
fracture, Vickers hardness was measured with a
microhardness tester (HMV-2000, Shimadzu,
Tokyo, JapanI applying a 500-g load for 7 5 seconds. Three readings were recorded for each specimen and the mean value was calculated.
Statistical Analysis

Data obtained were analyzed using one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe's multiple range test.
Results
Storage in water elicited no significant difference
in any of the specimens (Table 1 ).
During disinfection procedures, all specimens
exhibited significant mean linear changes ranging
from - 0 . 0 0 5 % to 0.03%, Croup B, exhibited
smaller linear changes than all others and Ci
exhibited the greatest (Table 2).

Tlie Inlerralional lournal o Prosiliclontk

152

Polyzoiset al

Table 2

Percentage Linear Changes After Disinfecting Procedures (n=1

Group
A,
A,
B,
B,

0,011
0.023
-0.005
0,009
0,009
0.027

c,

Glutaraideliyde and Microwave Oisinfectiun of Acrylic Resir

Standard
deviation

Standard
error

0,007
0,013
0.007
0.007
0.007
0,006

0.002
0,004
0.002
0,002
0,002
0,002

Schetfe's multiple range test

A one-way analysis ol vanarce showed that an overall significant difference was irdicaled between the grojps F
= 17,37. dt^ 5-54: P ^ ,0000
'Denoies pairs of groups significantly diflErent at ttie ,05 level.

Table 3

Rexural Strength in MPa (n = 10)

Group

Mean

A,
A,
B,
B,

100,63
96,99
99,56
91,29
94,97
93,93

c,

Standard
devialiori

Scheffe's multiple ranq(i test

Standard
error

3,14
4,55
4,9
4,44
2,89
2,44

A,

A,

B,

B,

0,99
1,43
1,54
1,40
0,91
0,77

A one-w3V analysis ol varianoe sfiowed that an overail signiflcanl difference was indicated between the groups
F = 0,42; di= 5-54; P= .0000,
'Denotes pairs ot groups significantly different at the ,05 leuel.

Table 4

Modulus ol Elasticity in MPa(n = 10)

Table 5

Maximum Deflection at Break in mm (n = 10)

Gn^up

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

Group

Mean

Standard deviation

Standard error

A,
A,
B,
B-

2901
2990
2990
2822
2948
2825

63
289
106
173
208
189

20
91
29
55
66
60

A,
A,
B,
B,
C,
C,

7,32
6,62
6,57
7,17
7,01
7,09

0,55
1,31
0,89
0,65
0,54
0,63

0,17
0,41
0,28
0,2
0,17
0,19

c,

A one-way analysis of variance sfiowed that no significant difference was

indicated tietween groups. F = 1,38; dt= 5-54: P^ 2

A ore-way analysis of varanes showed that no significant differenc

indicated between groups, F = 169; dt= 5-54; P= ,1.

Table 6

Vickers Surface Microhardness |n = 10)

Scheffe's mulliple range test

Group

Mean

deviation

error

A.
A,
B,
B,
Ci
C,

1926
19 63
19,98
19,67
19,54
19,35

0.06
0,12
0.20
0,17
0,14
0,12

0,02
0,04
0,06
0,05
0,12
0,04

A,

A;

8,

B,

C,

A ane.way analysis of varianoe showed that an overali significant difference was indicated between the groups.
F = 30,73; d= 5-54; P= ,0000.
'Denotes pars of groups significantiy different at the ,05 ievel.

133

I ol Prosthodcntics

Clutaraldehydc ,ind Mi

Disinrettioii o Acrylic Re

Rowe AHR, Forrest SO. Dental impressions: The probability of contamination and a method of disintet tion. Br
DentI I9?8:145:i84-iaf..
Leung Rt, Schoenfield SF. Gypsum casts as a potential
source of cross contamination. | Prosthet Dent 1983:
49:210-211.
Stern KA, Whiteacre RJ. An investigation of methods available for sterilizing impressions. Br Dent J 1981:151:
217-219,
American Dental Association. Council of Dental
Therapeutics and Council of Prosthetic Services and
Dental Laboratory Relations. Guidelines for infection control Jn the dental office and the commercial dental laboratory. ] Am Dent Assoc 1985;110:969-972.
Merchant VA. Infection Control in the dental laboratory:
Concerns for the dentist. Compend Contin Educ Dent
1993:14:382-391Miller CH, tjpdate on heat sterilization and steriiiiation
monitoring. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1993;14:
304-316.
Rohrer MD, Bulard RA. Microwave sterilization. 1 Am
Dent Assoc 1985:110:194-199.
Cowan ME, Allen |. Microwave processing of dehydrated
culture media- Med Lab Sei 1985:42:156-159.
Latimer |M, Malsen JM, Microwave iriadiation as a
method for bacterial decontamination in a clinical microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol 1977;6:340-345.
lasnovt' SB, Smith |L. Microwave sanitization of colour
additives used m cosmetics: Eeasibility study. AppI
Microbiol 1975:30:205-309Voung SK, Craves PC, Rohrer MD, Bulard RA. Microwave
sterilization of nitrons oxide nasal hoods cantaminated
with virus. Oral Surg I985:&0:581-585.
Papadopoulou C, Dimitriou D, Panagiou A, Levldiotou-Stefanou
S, Cessouli H, loannides K, et al. A study cf the possible bactericidal thermal effects of microwaves on various pathogenic bacteria. Acta Microbiol Hellenica 1993:38:236-251.
Huggett R. Studies on the physical and mechanical properties o denture base polymers [PhD thesis]. Univ of
Bristol, 1990.
Burns DR, Kazanoglou A, Moon PC, Gunsolley JC.
Dimensional stability of acrylic resin materials after
microwave sterilization. Int J Prosthodont 1990:3:489^93.
Shen C, |avid NS, Colaizzi FA. The effect of glutaraldehyde base disinfectants on denture resins. | Prosthet Dent
1985:61:583-589.
Asad T, Watkinson AC, Huggett R. The effect of disinfection procedures on flexural properties of denture base
acrylic resins. 1 Prosthet Dent 1991:68,191-195,

Microwave disinfection procedures (B,, B, produced specirnens having increased microhardness

cotnparing to the controls (Ci, C;). However, 1
hour of immersion in glutaraldehyde resulted in
the lowest tnicrohardness values that were significantly different from the control group (Cil. Twelve
hours of immersion increased mictoHardness but
not significantly from the control group (C.:). A possible explanation for the increased microhardness
resulting from microwave disinfection might be the
lack of water plasticizing effect occurring on the
microwave radiated specimens.
All disinfection methods used can be safely
applied in everyday practice for the disinfection of
denture acrylic resins. The microwave method
seems to be a reliable alternative holding the
advantage of less time consumption.
Conclusions
Under the conditions of this study, the following
conclusions may be made:
1. All the 'pecimens exhibited linear changes during disinfection procedures. Although these
changes were significant they are not of clinical
importance (< 0.03%).
2. The flexural properties (strength, modulus, and
deflection) remained unaffected during all disinfection procedures.
3. The small microhardness differences observed
among the various disinfecting procedures are
considered not to be clinically significant.
References
1. Wakefield CW. Laboratory contamination of denial prostheses. | Prosthet Dent 1980:44:143-146.
2. Kahn RC, Lancaster VM, Kale W. The microbiologie crosscontammalion of dental prostheses. | Prosthet Dent
;982;47:55b-559.

154