ArticleBMC oral health2026
Physicochemical and mechanical comparison of denture base materials after artificial aging.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of artificial aging on the surface integrity, mechanical properties, and thermal stability of three commercially available denture base materials: conventional heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), CAD/CAM-milled PMMA, and 3D-printed photopolymerizable resin.
methodsCylindrical samples (6 mm diameter × 3 mm height) were fabricated for each material. All samples were finished, and measurements were performed on the finished flat surface. A total of 20 samples were prepared for each material; half were tested at baseline and half after artificial aging, yielding a final sample size of n = 10 per group. Artificial aging was performed using 5000 thermocycles between 5 °C and 55 °C with a 10-second dwell time. Surface roughness (mean Ra, µm) was measured using non-contact optical profilometry, while surface microhardness (mean Vickers hardness, HV) was assessed using the Vickers hardness test. Thermal stability was evaluated using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA; mass loss, %) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC; heat flow, mW/mg). Surface morphology was examined through scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
resultsResults indicated a significant increase in surface roughness for all materials post-aging (p < 0.05), with 3D-printed resin showing the greatest change (0.04 → 0.07 μm) and milled PMMA the least (0.04→0.06 μm). Milled PMMA had the highest baseline hardness (20.01 HV) and exhibited the least reduction after aging, while 3D-printed resin experienced the most pronounced decline (16.96→16.21 HV). TGA showed mass gain in conventional PMMA (+ 0.23%) and 3D-printed resin (+ 0.13%), whereas milled PMMA lost mass (-0.16%).
conclusionsOverall, CAD/CAM-milled PMMA demonstrated superior thermal aging resistance, maintaining hardness and surface quality, followed by conventional PMMA. In contrast, 3D-printed resin was most vulnerable to surface deterioration and softening under artificial aging. CAD/CAM-milled PMMA can be a recommended choice for the denture base.
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.