Evaluates wear reduction in TiB2-reinforced PMMA composites, indicating improved durability for denture bases.
Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) remains a clinically important denture base polymer because of its favorable processability, aesthetics, repairability and long-term prosthodontic use; however, its limited surface hardness and susceptibility to sliding-induced degradation constrain surface durability. This study establishes the structure–chemistry–microstructure–tribology relationships and composition-window predictive behavior of heat-polymerized PMMA reinforced with titanium diboride (TiB2). PMMA/TiB2 composites containing 1, 3 and 5 wt.% TiB2 were prepared and compared with unreinforced PMMA. X-ray diffraction confirmed preservation of the broad amorphous/semi-amorphous PMMA response, while TiB2-related crystalline features became increasingly detectable with reinforcement content. ATR-FTIR showed retention of the characteristic C–H, ester C=O and C–O/C–O–C vibrations. SEM/EDS demonstrated progressively greater particle-related surface contrast and local Ti/B-associated elemental signatures. Vickers microhardness increased from 20.0 ± 0.7 to 35.0 ± 1.39 HV0.03, corresponding to a 75.0% improvement at 5 wt.% TiB2. After 1000 m of dry sliding, total mass loss decreased from 32.4 ± 0.5 to 14.9 ± 0.4 mg (54.0% reduction), overall coefficient of friction decreased from 0.58 to 0.35, and representative wear-track width decreased from 481.4 to 101.8 µm. A parsimonious distance–composition interaction model retained strong grouped leave-one-composition-out performance for cumulative wear (R2 = 0.9622; RMSE = 1.53 mg), while a linear composition model provided the most robust hardness prediction (R2 = 0.9317; RMSE = 1.50 HV0.03). More complex nonlinear models did not improve prediction for held-out compositions. Within the investigated 0–5 wt.% window, 5 wt.% TiB2 provided the most effective combination of matrix preservation, surface hardening, wear suppression and frictional stabilization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hıdır et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: