SynthesisJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2026
Physicomechanical properties of PMMA denture base resins reinforced with nanofibers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite the potential of nanofibers to reinforce poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) denture base resins, no consensus exists regarding their effects on material properties. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether the incorporation of nanofibers into PMMA denture base resins improves flexural strength and other physicomechanical properties when compared with unmodified PMMA. METHODOLOGY: This study followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered on the Open Science Framework (<osf.io/3g9pn>). Searches were conducted on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Lilacs, and SciELO. Eligibility criteria included in vitro or in vivo studies comparing nanofiber-reinforced PMMA to conventional PMMA. The meta-analysis was conducted for flexural strength (the only property assessed in all studies). A subgroup meta-analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity between studies.
resultsFrom the 1,893 initially screened articles, six were included. The investigated nanofibers included carbon, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, polyamide-6, polystyrene, cellulose, PMMA-cerium, and polyvinyl alcohol at concentrations from 0.1 to 23%. The evaluated properties included impact strength, flexural strength, fracture resistance, hardness, elasticity, toughness, surface roughness, contact angle, and spectrophotometric color analysis. While the qualitative analysis showed divergent findings regarding property improvement, the quantitative analysis revealed no significant differences in flexural strength between nanofiber-reinforced PMMA and conventional PMMA at the evaluated concentrations: PMMA vs. 0.5% PMMA (p=0.554), PMMA vs. 1% PMMA (p=0.847), PMMA vs. 3% PMMA (p=0.9825), and PMMA vs. 5% PMMA (p=0.222). However, subgroup analysis indicated higher flexural strength for the conventional PMMA when compared with nanofiber-reinforced PMMA, particularly at higher nanofiber concentrations (p<0.0001).
conclusionIncorporating nanofibers into PMMA resulted in no significant increase in flexural strength, showing inconsistent effects on other physicomechanical properties. Therefore, further standardized laboratory and clinical studies are needed to clarify its efficacy and clinical applicability.
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.