Affiliation:
1. Department of Head and Neck Surgery Division of Surgery Advanced Education Program in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Oral Oncology The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA
2. Oral Health Research Institute Department of Cariology Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health Indiana University School of Dentistry Indianapolis Indiana USA
3. Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics Indiana University School of Dentistry Indianapolis Indiana USA
4. Department of Prosthodontics Indiana University School of Dentistry Indianapolis Indiana USA
Abstract
AbstractPurposeTo investigate the effects of 4 denture base materials, 2 surface treatment protocols, and simulated brushing (SB) on the surface hardness, surface roughness, surface gloss, and the surface loss of denture base materials.Materials and MethodsFour denture base resin material groups (compression‐molded, injection‐molded, 3D‐printed, and milled) with two different surface treatment protocols (polished and glazed) were utilized in this study. A total of 80 samples (n = 10) were evaluated for surface hardness (Vickers) before SB. SB was performed for each sample (custom‐built V8 cross brushing machine, 50,000 reciprocal strokes). Surface roughness (Ra) was measured before and after SB with a non‐contact optical profilometer. Surface gloss was performed using a glossmeter to determine changes in surface reflectivity of the specimens before and after SB. Surface loss (wear resistance) was measured after SB using optical profilometry. The effects of material, surface treatment, and SB on all surface characteristics were examined with two‐way and three‐way analysis of variance models (ANOVA) (α = 0.05).ResultsThe polished compression‐molded group had significantly higher surface hardness than all other groups. The protective glaze coating significantly increased the surface hardness for all groups (P < 0.001). SB increased the surface roughness of all groups regardless of surface treatments (P < 0.001). The increase in surface roughness after SB was significantly higher with polished surface treatment than with a glazed surface treatment in all groups (P < 0.001). Surface gloss was significantly higher with the glazed surface treatment than with the polished surface treatment for all denture base materials (P < 0.001). After SB, milled denture base material showed the highest, and 3D‐printed material showed the second highest surface gloss compared to the other groups (P < 0.001), regardless of surface treatment. In all materials tested, surface glaze significantly decreased surface loss (P < 0.001). With the glaze surface treatment, compression‐molded denture base material had significantly less surface loss (more surface gain) than other materials, while with the polished surface treatment, 3D‐printed denture base material had the least surface loss when compared with other groups.ConclusionsA single layer of nano‐filled, light‐polymerizing protective glaze coating has displayed potential for enhancing the longevity of denture base materials, as evidenced by increased hardness and wear resistance. Following simulated brushing, the milled denture material exhibited the highest surface gloss and lowest surface roughness among all groups, regardless of the surface treatment protocol. This indicates that milled denture base material possesses favorable surface properties and may serve as a viable alternative to traditional denture base materials.