What does this research mean for the field?

Denture base fabrication methods significantly affect the material's wettability, microhardness, and tensile bond strength to hard reline materials, with milled bases exhibiting the highest microhardness and 3D-printed bases showing the lowest. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare surface roughness, wettability, microhardness, and tensile bond strength of two hard reline materials bonded to conventional heat-polymerized, milled, and 3D-printed denture bases.

August 22, 2026BMC Oral HealthOpen Access

Comparison of surface properties, microhardness, and tensile bond strength of conventional, milled, and 3D-printed denture base materials: an in vitro study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

MÜMerve ÜnalSivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi UYUmut YiğitAdnan Menderes University EGEcem GülerUsak University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

In vitro study demonstrates variations in hardness, wettability, and reline bond strength across denture manufacturing methods, highlighting material-specific bonding performance.

Key Points

To compare surface roughness, wettability, microhardness, and tensile bond strength of two hard reline materials bonded to conventional heat-polymerized, milled, and 3D-printed denture bases.
Fabricated denture base specimens via CAD/CAM milling (ML), heat polymerization (HP), and 3D printing (PR) for surface roughness, contact angle, Vickers microhardness, SEM, and EDX analyses.
Prepared 120 bonded assemblies (N=120) using two hard reline materials (Ufi Gel Hard [UG] and Tokuyama Rebase II [TR]) to evaluate tensile bond strength using one-way and two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
Surface roughness showed no significant difference among HP, ML, and PR (0.53 ± 0.12, 0.49 ± 0.07, and 0.51 ± 0.19 µm; p = 0.803), but contact angle was higher in PR than ML (88.64 ± 5.59° vs. 74.33 ± 7.68°; p = 0.039) and ML had the highest microhardness (24.41 ± 3.79 VHN vs. PR: 16.32 ± 1.77 VHN; p = 0.024).
Tensile bond strength was significantly higher for UG than TR in HP (7.11 ± 3.27 vs. 3.99 ± 1.72 MPa; p < 0.001) and PR (5.69 ± 2.94 vs. 3.30 ± 1.21 MPa; p = 0.001), while no significant difference occurred for ML (p = 0.630).

Cite This Study

Ünal et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895fc4ca7ade938187ea9a https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-09664-x

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

In vitro study demonstrates variations in hardness, wettability, and reline bond strength across denture manufacturing methods, highlighting material-specific bonding performance.

Comparison of surface properties, microhardness, and tensile bond strength of conventional, milled, and 3D-printed denture base materials: an in vitro study

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Comparison of surface properties, microhardness, and tensile bond strength of conventional, milled, and 3D-printed denture base materials: an in vitro study

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider