ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Wettability, and Hardness of Conventional, Heat-Polymerized, Computer-Aided Designed and Milled, and Three-Dimensionally Printed Polymethyl Methacrylate Denture Base Resins: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of three-body wear on the surface properties of different polymer-based CAD/CAM dental restorative and prosthetic materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Physicochemical and mechanical comparison of denture base materials after artificial aging.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- BLIS M18 probiotic cleanser: effects on color and surface properties of conventional, milled, and 3D-printed PMMA.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Mechanical Evaluation of Prosthodontic Dental Acrylics Fabricated by Conventional and Additive Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Surface hardness and roughness in glass fiber-modified polymethyl methacrylate resin: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Surface roughness on retention of complete dentures using conventional and digital techniques: An in vitro study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The surface characteristics of denture base resins, such as surface roughness, wettability, and surface hardness, are critical determinants of denture success and patient satisfaction. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the surface characteristics of three fabrication techniques: conventional heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-milled PMMA, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed PMMA denture base resins. The objective of this study was to identify the most favorable material in terms of surface quality to assist clinicians in optimizing denture performance and biocompatibility. Materials and methods A total of 120 standardized specimens (25 × 25 × 3 mm) were prepared and divided equally into three groups (n = 40 each). Group I consisted of conventional heat-polymerized PMMA (Triplex Hot, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Group II consisted of CAD/CAM-milled PMMA (Ivotion base disc, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Group III consisted of 3D-printed PMMA (3D Accuprint Denture, D-Tech, Mumbai, India). All specimens were finished, polished, stored in distilled water, and subjected to thermocycling, followed by immersion in artificial saliva to simulate oral conditions. The surface wettability was measured using the sessile drop method and contact angle analysis. The surface roughness was evaluated using a contact profilometer (Surftest SJ-210, Mitutoyo Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan), and the surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness tester (Mitutoyo HM-200, Mitutoyo Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan). Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test, with significance set at p < 0.001. Results Significant differences were observed among the three groups (p < 0.001). The highest contact angle was recorded in the 3D-printed group (73.94 ± 2.29°), indicating greater hydrophobicity, while CAD/CAM (73.26 ± 2.37°) and conventional PMMA (68.38 ± 1.93°). The CAD/CAM specimens showed the smoothest surfaces (0.16 ± 0.014 µm), while conventional PMMA was the roughest (0.21 ± 0.019 µm). In terms of hardness, the CAD/CAM specimens exhibited the highest values, significantly outperforming the conventional and 3D-printed groups. Conclusion CAD/CAM-milled PMMA denture bases demonstrated superior surface smoothness and hardness, whereas 3D-printed specimens exhibited the highest hydrophobicity. Digital fabrication methods offer improved surface characteristics compared with conventional techniques, potentially enhancing the clinical performance and longevity of complete dentures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.