Investigation of the Surface Roughness and Hardness of Different Denture Teeth Materials: An In vitro Study

Kanav Garg; Impreet Kaur; Akshaysinh P Vala; C Deepashree; Vishnuja V R Nair; Nivya John

doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_644_23

Investigation of the Surface Roughness and Hardness of Different Denture Teeth Materials: An In vitro Study

J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Feb;16(Suppl 1):S427-S430. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_644_23. Epub 2024 Feb 29.

Authors

Kanav Garg¹, Impreet Kaur², Akshaysinh P Vala³, C Deepashree⁴, Vishnuja V R Nair⁵, Nivya John⁶

Affiliations

¹ MDS (Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge), Consultant Prosthodontist, Patiala, Punjab, India.
² Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Punjab Government Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
³ Department of Periodontics, Goenka Research Institutes of Dental Sciences, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
⁴ Department of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, V. S. Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
⁵ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, KVG Dental College and Hospital, Sullia, Karnataka, India.
⁶ Department of Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte Deemed to be University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Abstract

Background: Surface roughness and hardness are key factors that influence the clinical performance and durability of denture teeth. Understanding variations in these properties among different denture teeth materials can assist in selecting the most suitable materials for optimal patient outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the surface roughness and hardness of four commonly used denture teeth materials: acrylic resin, composite resin, porcelain, and nanohybrid composite.

Materials and methods: Ten specimens were prepared for each denture teeth material, resulting in a total of 40 specimens. Surface roughness was assessed using a profilometer, and measurements were recorded in micrometers (μm). Hardness was determined using a Vickers hardness tester, and results were expressed as Vickers hardness numbers (VHN). The surface roughness and hardness data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., analysis of variance), with significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: The results revealed significant differences in both surface roughness and hardness among the different denture teeth materials (P < 0.05). Acrylic resin exhibited the highest surface roughness (mean ± standard deviation: 3.45 ± 0.78 μm) and the lowest hardness (mean ± standard deviation: 45.6 ± 2.3 VHN). Composite resin demonstrated intermediate values of surface roughness (mean ± standard deviation: 1.87 ± 0.54 μm) and hardness (mean ± standard deviation: 65.2 ± 3.9 VHN). Porcelain demonstrated the smoothest surface (mean ± standard deviation: 0.94 ± 0.28 μm) and the highest hardness (mean ± standard deviation: 78.5 ± 4.1 VHN). Nanohybrid composite displayed surface roughness and hardness values similar to composite resin.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated significant variations in surface roughness and hardness among the different denture teeth materials evaluated. Acrylic resin exhibited the roughest surface and lowest hardness, while porcelain demonstrated the smoothest surface and highest hardness. Composite resin and nanohybrid composite exhibited intermediate values. These findings provide valuable insights for prosthodontic practitioners in selecting denture teeth materials based on specific clinical requirements, aiming to achieve optimal aesthetics, reduced plaque accumulation, and improved wear resistance.

Keywords: Acrylic resin; composite resin; denture teeth materials; hardness; nanohybrid composite; porcelain; prosthodontics; surface roughness.