Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and impact strength of conventional polymethyl methacrylate and microcrystalline cellulose reinforced polymethyl methacrylate - An in vitro study.
Thumma Sagar Reddy, Vinu Thomas George, Gauri Shahi, Sauptik Ray
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and impact strength of conventional polymethyl methacrylate and microcrystalline cellulose reinforced polymethyl methacrylate - An in vitro study.","authors":"Thumma Sagar Reddy, Vinu Thomas George, Gauri Shahi, Sauptik Ray","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_459_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate and compare the surface roughness and impact strength of conventional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) with microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)-reinforced PMMA.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>An in-vitro experimental study was conducted. Fifty PMMA specimens were fabricated and divided into five groups based on MCC concentration (2% or 5%) and particle size (20 μm or 50 μm).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Specimens (80 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm) were categorized as follows: Group A (control; conventional PMMA), Groups B and D (2% MCC with 20 µm and 50 µm particles, respectively), and Groups C and E (5% MCC with 20 µm and 50 µm particles, respectively). Surface roughness was measured using a contact profilometer, and impact strength was tested with a ZwickRoell impact testing machine.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 28.0. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine intergroup differences, with the significance level set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Surface roughness was lower in Groups B (0.89±0.43), C (1.07±0.34), and E (0.77±0.27) compared to the control Group A (1.25±0.42), while Group D (1.84±0.25) showed higher values. Impact strength in Groups C (1.85±0.23), D (1.80±0.17), and E (1.81±0.26) was slightly lower than the control (1.88±0.31), though not statistically significant. However, Group B (1.56 ± 0.20) showed a significant reduction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of 20 μm MCC reduced surface roughness at both 2% and 5% concentrations, whereas 50 μm MCC increased roughness at 2% but decreased at 5%. Impact strength remained comparable to the control in all groups except PMMA + 2% MCC (20 μm), which exhibited a significant decline. MCC reinforcement influences PMMA's mechanical and surface properties, suggesting its potential for denture base modifications.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"25 3","pages":"204-209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_459_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the surface roughness and impact strength of conventional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) with microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)-reinforced PMMA.
Settings and design: An in-vitro experimental study was conducted. Fifty PMMA specimens were fabricated and divided into five groups based on MCC concentration (2% or 5%) and particle size (20 μm or 50 μm).
Materials and methods: Specimens (80 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm) were categorized as follows: Group A (control; conventional PMMA), Groups B and D (2% MCC with 20 µm and 50 µm particles, respectively), and Groups C and E (5% MCC with 20 µm and 50 µm particles, respectively). Surface roughness was measured using a contact profilometer, and impact strength was tested with a ZwickRoell impact testing machine.
Statistical analysis used: Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 28.0. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine intergroup differences, with the significance level set at p<0.05.
Results: Surface roughness was lower in Groups B (0.89±0.43), C (1.07±0.34), and E (0.77±0.27) compared to the control Group A (1.25±0.42), while Group D (1.84±0.25) showed higher values. Impact strength in Groups C (1.85±0.23), D (1.80±0.17), and E (1.81±0.26) was slightly lower than the control (1.88±0.31), though not statistically significant. However, Group B (1.56 ± 0.20) showed a significant reduction.
Conclusion: The addition of 20 μm MCC reduced surface roughness at both 2% and 5% concentrations, whereas 50 μm MCC increased roughness at 2% but decreased at 5%. Impact strength remained comparable to the control in all groups except PMMA + 2% MCC (20 μm), which exhibited a significant decline. MCC reinforcement influences PMMA's mechanical and surface properties, suggesting its potential for denture base modifications.