Thumma Sagar Reddy, Vinu Thomas George, Gauri Shahi, Sauptik Ray
{"title":"常规聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯和微晶纤维素增强聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯表面粗糙度和冲击强度的体外比较研究。","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":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370108/pdf/\",\"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}","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
摘要
目的:评价和比较常规聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)与微晶纤维素(MCC)增强PMMA的表面粗糙度和冲击强度。设置与设计:进行体外实验研究。制作50个PMMA样品,根据MCC浓度(2%或5%)和粒径(20 μm或50 μm)分为5组。材料与方法:标本(80 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm)分为:A组(对照组;B组和D组(2% MCC,颗粒分别为20µm和50µm), C组和E组(5% MCC,颗粒分别为20µm和50µm)。表面粗糙度用接触轮廓仪测量,冲击强度用ZwickRoell冲击试验机测试。采用的统计分析:采用IBM SPSS Version 28.0进行统计分析。采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验确定组间差异,显著性水平设为:B组表面粗糙度(0.89±0.43)、C组(1.07±0.34)、E组(0.77±0.27)低于对照组A组(1.25±0.42),而D组(1.84±0.25)高于对照组。C组(1.85±0.23)、D组(1.80±0.17)、E组(1.81±0.26)的冲击强度略低于对照组(1.88±0.31),但差异无统计学意义。而B组(1.56±0.20)明显降低。结论:20 μm MCC在2%和5%浓度下均降低了表面粗糙度,而50 μm MCC在2%浓度下增加了表面粗糙度,但在5%浓度下降低了表面粗糙度。除PMMA + 2% MCC (20 μm)显著下降外,其余各组的冲击强度均与对照组相当。MCC增强会影响PMMA的机械性能和表面性能,表明其具有义齿基托修饰的潜力。
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and impact strength of conventional polymethyl methacrylate and microcrystalline cellulose reinforced polymethyl methacrylate - An in vitro study.
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.