Candida albicans adherence to denture base materials is a critical initial step in biofilm formation and the development of denture stomatitis. Surface morphology may influence microbial colonisation; however, comparative evidence regarding conventional heat-polymerised polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), high-impact PMMA, and flexible denture base resin remains scarce. This in vitro study compared the qualitative surface morphology and C. albicans adherence of these commonly used denture base materials. Thirty-six standardised disc-shaped specimens ( n = 12/group) were fabricated from conventional heat-polymerised PMMA, high-impact PMMA, and flexible denture base resin. A clinical isolate of C. albicans was identified using the germ tube test, and a standardised inoculum was prepared. Sterilised specimens were inoculated with the fungal suspension, incubated for 48 h, and fungal adherence was quantified by colony-forming unit (CFU) enumeration. Surface morphology was qualitatively evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Mean C. albicans adherence was 5.417 ± 1.443 CFU/mL for conventional PMMA, 2.833 ± 1.528 CFU/mL for flexible denture base resin, and 0.500 ± 0.522 CFU/mL for high-impact PMMA. The overall difference among the three materials was statistically significant (F = 46.435, p < 0.001). SEM revealed distinct qualitative differences in surface morphology: conventional PMMA exhibited greater surface irregularities, high-impact PMMA showed a smoother, more homogeneous surface, and flexible denture base resin displayed intermediate characteristics. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, a statistically significant overall difference in C. albicans adherence was observed among the three denture base materials. High-impact PMMA showed the lowest mean fungal adherence and a comparatively homogeneous surface morphology, whereas conventional PMMA showed the highest mean adherence and greater surface irregularity. Further laboratory and clinical studies are required to validate these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aparoopa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: