Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research

@Society of Scientific Research and Studies

Journal home page: www.jamdsr.com doi: 10.21276/jamdsr ICV 2018= 82.06

(e) ISSN Online: 2321-9599; (p) ISSN Print: 2348-6805

Original Research
Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth- An
In vitro Study
1
Shweta Parmar, 2Purushotam Kumar, 3Siddharth Gupta, 4Ambika Shrivastava, 5G. S. Chandu, 6
Amanmeet
Singh
1
Sr Lecturer Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of dental science & Research Center, Bhopal,
Madhya pradesh, India;
2
Consultant prosthodontist and Implantologist, Motihari, Bihar, India;
3
Professor Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of dental science & Research Center, Bhopal, Madhya
pradesh, India;
4
Professor Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of dental science & Research Center, Bhopal, Madhya
pradesh, India;
5
Professor and head Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of dental science & Research Center,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India;
6
P G student Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of dental science & Research Center, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT:
Background & objective: To evaluate and compare the Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of six different types of
commercially available Artificial Acrylic teeth (Cavitax, Ivostar, Acryplus, Biorock, Cosmo, and Premadent. Methodology:
12 samples of each brand were evaluated for Abrasion Resistance employing Taber abrader testing Machine and for
Microhardness Vickers hardness tester were used. After statistical Analysis Mann-Whitney U test was used. Results:
Abrasion resistance values in Group 3was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6.
Abrasion resistance values in Group 4was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group3, Group 5 and Group 6.
Microhardness values in Group 3was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6.
Microhardness values in Group 4 was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 5 and Group 6.Microhardness
values in Group 2was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 5 and Group 6. Conclusion: It was found that all of the
samples tested Group 3(Acryplus) had the maximum surface Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness value.
Key words- Denture, Acrylic, Abrasive Resistance, Microhardness.

Received: 23 August, 2019 Revised: 19 October, 2019 Accepted: 23 October, 2019

Corresponding author: Dr. Shweta Parmar, Sr Lecturer Department of prosthodontics, Rishiraj college of
dental science & Research Center, Bhopal, Madhya pradesh, India

This article may be cited as: Parmar S, Kumar P, Gupta S, Shrivastava A, Chandu GS, Singh A. Abrasion
Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth- An In vitro Study. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res
2019;7(11):194-200.

INTRODUCTION make dentures which are comparable to the current

Since time immemorial humans have always been on times was done in 1850’s by Nelson Gogyer and
a mission to replace the missing teeth. This quest for Charles brother who developed hard rubber called
replacement of missing teeth has pushed us to use the “VULCANITE. The dentures made out of vulcanite,
prevailing science of current times and creativity to its fitted well and were relatively cheaper for the
limit. The earliest known attempts to replace missing common man, but it was difficult to modify the
teeth was made as early in 700BC, that time Etruscan colour, the material was porous causing food
from Northern Italy used human or animal teeth, lodgment, it had lack of translucency leading to poor
although they distorted quickly1.. The first attempt to esthetics and were relatively unhygienic1.
1
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

It was only in 1937 when Dr. Walter Wright Grouping of specimen

introduced resin-‘Polymethyl methacrylate’ to For Abrasion Resistance For Microhardness
dentistry. Polymethyl methacrylate revolutionized the Group 1(Cavitax)n=12 Group (Cavitax)n=12
way teeth were replaced in those days, not only the Group 2(Ivostar) n=12 Group 2(Ivostar)n=12
denture bases but also the artificial teeth were made Group (Acryplus)n=12 Group 3(Acryplus)n=12
using acrylic resin from earlier part of 20thcentury.2 Group 4(Biorock)n=12 Group 4(Biorock) n=12
Historically porcelain teeth has been reported to be Group 5(Cosmo) n=12 Group 5(Cosmo) n=12
most durable teeth with least wear but Acrylic teeth Group6(Premadent) n=12 Group 6 (Premadent)
n=12
are still the most commonly used, this is primarily due
to their property of clinical bonding with denture base
From all the teeth set Maxillary and mandibular Right
and ease of lab and clinical use1. With the
and left central incisors, Canines and first molars were
development of technology in the field of acrylic resin
used. To mimic the clinical condition the samples
efforts, were been made to mimic the natural teeth and
were first stored in distilled water for 24 hrs to allow
so multi-layered cross linked acrylic teeth with
water absorption.
enamel and dentin layers were introduced. During
Testing of sample was done at Central Institute of
clinical use the outer most layer of this composite
Plastics Engineering &Technology (CIPET),Bhopal.
teeth is lost due to masticatory wear or occlusal
The samples were tested on Taber abrader testing
adjustment which leads to exposure of layers .3.
Over the years acrylic teeth has been modified to machine (5131). Total 72 samples tested on this
overcome the disadvantages of excessive wear by machine. Since the dimension of the samples to be
tested was small, round disc shape base(diameter-
using cross linking agents, different monomer and
addition of filler particles. The manufacture of these 11.5mm, thickness-1mm) was made out of self-cure
acrylic resin. This was done so that the sample could
modified cross linked teeth have better wear
be tightly held on the testing machine. The samples
resistance, higher grinding strength, and better crazing
were weighted and reading were noted and tabulated
resistance. Hardness, which is related to wear
as control group.
resistance and is an indicator of the mechanical
The samples were first immobilized on machine and
properties of artificial acrylic teeth. 4-5 Abrasion is
then the abrasion cycles were started with frequency
wearingdown, marring or rubbing away of acrylic
of 1000 cycles with loading of 1000 grams; thereafter
tooth surface. By checking for hardness and abrasion
tooth surfaces was sandblasted with 600µm silicon
resistance of different commercially available teeth an
estimate of their longevity can be made. There was carbide particles. After completing 1000 cycles the
samples were weighted again and the results were
adirt of literature which can compare the wear
noted and tabulated again14.
resistance and microhardness of commonly available
The samples were tested on Vickers Hardness testing
cross linked acrylic teeth. This study was there for
machine (Leica Germany).Total 72 samples tested on
undertaken to evaluate and compare the abrasion
this machine. Since the dimension of the samples to
resistance and microhardness of the following
be tested was small, round shape base (Diameter
artificial acrylic teeth Cavitax (india), Ivostar (Ivaclar,
20mm, Height-6mm) was made out of self-cure
vivodent, Liechtenslein,USA), Acryplus (Ruthinum,
acrylic resin. This was done so that the sample could
Italy) , Biorock (Brulon, Deccan), cosmo HXL
be tightly held on the testing machine. The
(Dentsply, Brazil), Premadent (India).2
microhardness were tested on Maxillary and
mandibular Right and left central incisors, Canines
METHODOLOGY
and first molar of each brand were sectioned to make
72specimen, the teeth were sectioned buccopalataly at
Inclusion criteria-
the centre of the crown with low speed diamond disk
1. Only cross- linked teeth were used.
(contene).Only one half of the crown were used and
2. Only ISO (International Organization for
another were discarded. The cut surfaces were
Standardization) approved teeth sets were
polished by silicon carbide paper (80 grit).
used.
The cross sections surfaces were observed using a
3. Two different types of teeth of each brand
microscope ((Motic, Asia) at 15 magnification to
used for particular test.
determine the number of layers constituting the
4. For each brand the Samples were selected
structure of each type of tooth. The hardness of each
were of the same batch.
brand was determined with Vickers hardness tester
For the study six different brands of ISO approved (Leica, Germany) at 300gf load and dwell time 10
cross linked denture teeth were used Cavitax (India), seconds, One indentation were measured on each
Ivostar (Ivaclar, vivodent, Liechtenslein, USA), specimen. The diamond shape indentation were
observed in an optical microscope with a digital
Acryplus (Ruthinum, Italy),Biorock (Brulon,
camera. The length of the two diagonal was used to
Deccan),Cosmo (Dentsply, Brazil), Premadent (India)
calculate the microhardness (Vickers hardness) value.
The representative value for each sample was

2
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

obtained as the average of the results for indentation Glass Plates

and the results were noted and tabulated

Fig 5. Two glass pla

Fig 1. Digital stereo microscope

Fig 6. Silicon carbide paper

Fig 2. Camera

Fig 7. Micromotor with hand piece

Fig 3. Vickers hardness testing machine

Fig 8. Cross section of Acrylic teeth

Fig 4. Diamond disc (Thickness0.25mm)

3
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

Fig 13 samples were stored in distilled water for

24 hrs. to allow water absorption.
Fig 9. Metallic cylinder

Fig 10. Taber abrader

Fig 14.Testing for Abrasion Resistance

Fig 11 Weighing machine

Fig 15.Testing for Microhardness

Fig 12. 48 Samples of six groups

Table 1 shows comparison of abrasion resistance between different types ofartificial acrylic denture teeth. Mean
± SD of abrasion resistance in Cavitax, Ivostar, Acryplus, Biorock, Cosmo and Premadent groups were 0.003 ±
0.001, 0.005 ± 0.001, 0.008 ± 0.001, 0.006 ± 0.001, 0.004 ± 0.001 and 0.001 ± 0.000 respectively. Minimum
and maximum values of abrasion resistance in Cavitax were 0.002and 0.004, in Ivostar were 0.003and 0.006, in
Acryplus were 0.006and 0.008, in Biorock were 0.004and 0.008, in Cosmo were 0.002and 0.005 and; in
Premadent were 0.001and 0.002.
4
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

RESULTS

Table 1: Comparison of abrasion resistance between different types of artificial acrylic denture teeth.
Abrasion resistance
Groups
Mean ± SD Min-Max
Group 1 (Cavitax) 0.003± 0.001 0.002-0.004
Group 2 (Ivostar) 0.005± 0.001 0.003-0.006
Group 3 (Acryplus) 0.008± 0.001 0.006-0.008
Group 4 (Biorock) 0.006± 0.001 0.004-0.008
Group 5 (Cosmo) 0.004± 0.001 0.002-0.005
Group 6 (Premadent) 0.001± 0.000 0.001-0.002
χ2 = 40.796, df =5, P = 0.000 (<0.001)
Kruskal-Wallis test
Very high significant
Mann-Whitney U test: -
Group 1 and Group 2 MW = 3.000, P = 0.002 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 3 MW = 0.000, P = 0.000 (<0.001)Very high sig.
Group 1 and Group 4 MW = 0.500, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 5 MW = 14.000, P = 0.048 (<0.05), Sig.
Group 1 and Group 6 MW = 2.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 3 MW = 1.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 4 MW = 9.000, P = 0.013 (<0.05), Sig.
Group 2 and Group 5 MW = 17.000, P = 0.100 (>0.05), Not sig.
Group 2 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.000 (<0.001)Very high sig.
Group 3 and Group 4 MW = 11.000, P = 0.019 (<0.05), Sig.
Group 3 and Group 5 MW = 0.000, P = 0.000 (<0.001)Very high sig.
Group 3 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.000 (<0.001)Very high sig.
Group 4 and Group 5 MW = 4.000, P = 0.003 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 4 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.000 (<0.001)Very high sig.
Group 5 and Group 6 MW = 1.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.

Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant difference between the groups for abrasion resistance (χ2 = 40.796, df =5,
P <0.001). After this Mann-Whitney U test was applied for pairwise comparison, which showed following
observations: -
1. Abrasion resistance values in Group 3was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 4, Group
5 and Group 6.
2. Abrasion resistance values in Group 4was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group3, Group
5 and Group 6.
3. Abrasion resistance values in Group 2 and Group 5 was significantly higher than Group 1and Group 6.
4. There was no significant difference between Group 2 and Group 5
5. Abrasion resistance values in Group 1was significantly higher than Group 6.

Table 2 shows comparison of microhardness in enamel layer between different types of artificial acrylic denture
teeth.Mean ± SD of microhardness in Cavitax, Ivostar, Acryplus, Biorock, Cosmo and Premadent groups were
19.68 ± 1.91 VHN, 30.95 ± 1.37 VHN, 39.15 ± 1.15 VHN, 33.98 ± 1.68 VHN, 24.33 ± 1.50 VHN and 15.70 ±
1.98 VHN, respectively. Minimum and maximum values of microhardness in Cavitax were 17.20VHN and
23.40 VHN, in Ivostar were 28.20VHN and 33.00 VHN, in Acryplus were 37.60VHN and 41.00 VHN, in
Biorock were 30.60VHN and 36.70 VHN, in Cosmo were 22.60VHN and 27.10VHN and; in Premadent were
13.10VHN and 19.30VHN. Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant difference between the groups for
microhardness (χ2 = 44.802, df =5, P <0.001). After this Mann-Whitney U test was applied for pairwise
comparison, which showed following observations: -
1. Microhardness values in Group 3was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 4, Group 5 and
Group 6.
2. Microhardness values in Group 4 was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 2, Group 5 and Group 6.
3. Microhardness values in Group 2was significantly higher than Group 1, Group 5 and Group 6.
4. Microhardness values in Group 5 was significantly higher than Group 1 and Group 6.
5. Microhardness values in Group 1was significantly higher than Group 6.

5
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

Table 2: Comparison of microhardness in enamel layer between different types of artificial acrylic
denture teeth.
Microhardness (VHN)
Groups
Mean ± SD Min-Max
Group 1 (Cavitax) 19.68± 1.91 17.20-23.40
Group 2 (Ivostar) 30.95± 1.37 28.20-33.00
Group 3 (Acryplus) 39.15± 1.15 37.60-41.00
Group 4 (Biorock) 33.98± 1.68 30.60-36.70
Group 5 (Cosmo) 24.33± 1.50 22.60-27.10
Group 6 (Premadent) 15.70± 1.98 13.10-19.30
χ2 = 44.802, df =5, P = 0.000 (<0.001)
Kruskal-Wallis test
Very high significant
Mann-Whitney U test: -
Group 1 and Group 2 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 3 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 4 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 5 MW = 3.000, P = 0.002 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 1 and Group 6 MW = 3.000, P = 0.002 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 3 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 4 MW = 6.000, P = 0.006 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 5 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 2 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 3 and Group 4 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 3 and Group 5 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 3 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 4 and Group 5 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 4 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.
Group 5 and Group 6 MW = 0.000, P = 0.001 (<0.01), Highly sig.

DISCUSSION
In today’s time, the most widely accepted and used Acryplus-
teeth for complete denture, continue to be cross linked 1) Acrylic teeth in Polymethylmethacrylate released
acrylic resin. This teeth offer the advantages of in multilayer chromatic.
chemical bonding with denture base which creates This type of tooth has important characteristics:
less chances of fractures and cracks. Acrylic resin 2) 4 Layered
teeth are known for one major disadvantages, which is 3) Higher abrasion resistance and hardness
of for poor wear resistance.6-7 This problem is more 4)Colour stability;
compounded for posterior teeth than anterior teeth. 5)Acryplus Available Range of 19 shades
The current dental market is full of cross linked
acrylic teeth of different companies with claim of Biorock-
superiority over one another. The present study was 1) Versatile on all aspect of denture prosthesis.
undertaken to compare the Abrasion Resistance and 2) Impresses with its lifelike aesthetical effect due to
Microhardness of six different Artificial Acrylic teeth. superimposition of the dentine & enamel.
Another parameter for testing wear is 3) The subtle surface texture makes it truly a lifelike
Microhardness. It has also found in previous study tooth moulds with perfect shape.
that microhardness is dependent on the number of 4) Integrated with luminescent & fluorescent effect.
layers. It was therefore one of the objective of the 5) Made for rock solid dentures with best cost
study to compare and evaluate the role of number of efficiency.
layers in different types of Artificial Acrylic teeth.
Different method for micro hardness had tested over Premadent
time. Brinell and Rockwell hardness test are used in 1. Enamel tended to fracture earlier due to
conjunction with metals and alloys, Where as Vickers, consisting of two layers.
Knoop and Berkovich hardness are usually measured 2. The Indian market is flooded of different brands
for ceramic and Shore and Universal hardness for of Acrylic resin teeth, these Acrylic resin teeth
plastics. In this study it was decided to use Vickers are from National and International
hardness test as it is simple and easier. The basic manufacturer. Each manufacturer claims to have
principle as with all common hardness measures is to the best teeth set available with prize ranging
observe the questioned materials ability to resist from Rupees 20 to 2000.
plastic deformation from standard sources.
6
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019
Parmar S et al. Abrasion Resistance and Microhardness of Six Artificial Acrylic Teeth.

The past studies show conflicting results which may microhardness of artificial denture teeth. Journal of
be due to different experimental design and Advance Prosthodontics.2016 Oct; 8(5): p333–338.
parameters. It was there for the intention of the study 4. Khan Z., Morris JC et al An invitro analysis of wear
evaluates both the surface hardness and resistance of commercially available acrylic denture
teeth. Journal of Indian prosthodontics society2010;
microhardness by using most widely accepted testing 10(3):p149-153.
patterns. 5. Fraunhofer V., J.A.Wear characteristics of high-strength
It was also made sure to select six most commonly denture teeth. Journal of Prosthodontic society. 1988;
used but ISO certified teeth. After considering the p173-176.
results and reviewing the literature, it can be said that 6. HiranoS.May K.B. et al. In vitro wear of resin denture
besides the chemical composition and number of teeth. Journal of prosthetic dentistry. Journal of
layers. Several other factors have also to be prosthetic dentistry 1998;79(2):p152-155.
considered while investigating the abrasive process to 7. HanelS.,Behr M.et al.Two body wear of artificial acrylic
allow better scientific rationale. and composite resin teeth in relation to antagonist
material.Journal of Prosth dent.2009;101(4):p269-78.
These factors include the frequency of teeth coming in 8. Mallika S..,ShenoyK.K.Aninvitro analysis of wear
contacts(functional and parafunctional),intensity of resistance of commercially available acrylic denture
occlusal forces, the type of forces on acrylic teeth.Journal of indian prosthodontics
teeth(Fixed and Removable)surfaces against teeth society2010;10(3):p149
being used(metallic and ceramic bridge)8-9 and finally 9. Tamaki R., Iegami CM et al Transverse microhardness
the types of abrasive cleansers being used on the of artificial teeth Department of Prosthodontics, School
complete denture. It is necessary for the dentist to of Dentistry, University Brazil ,2015; 21 (4): p204- 210
select the best brand possible after their consideration 10. Savabi O., NejatidaneshF., Evaluation of hardness and
to above factors. These procedures will ensure not wear resistance of interim restorative materials.Dental
research journal2013 Mar-Apr; 10(2): p184–189.
only the longevity of complete denture but also ensure 11. Digholkar S.,Madhav V.N.V et al, Evaluation of the
that the prime objectives of comfort zone and flexural strength and microhardness of provisional
aesthetic can be achieved and maintain a long period crown and bridge materials fabricated by different
of time. 10-11 methods. Journal of Indian prosthodontics society
2016;16 (4)p328-334
CONCLUSION
 Under the prevalent experimental conditions
and within limitations of this study, since the
wear resistance of the six types of
polymethyl methacrylate denture teeth was
different and the following conclusion can be
drawn.
 Samples taken from Group 3(Acryplus)
showed maximum Abrasion Resistance
followed by Group 1(Cavitax), Group
2(Ivostar), Group 4(Biorock) Group
5(Cosmo) with least Abrasion Resistance in
Group 6 (Premadent).
 Samples taken from Group 3 (Acryplus)
showed maximum Microhardness followed
by Group 1 (Cavitax), Group 2 (Ivostar),
Group4 (Biorock) Group 5 (Cosmo) with
lowest Microhardness in Group 6
(Premadent).
 The study also established the fact that, the
teeth set with maximum number of layers
had the maximum Abrasion Resistance and
Microhardness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Khindria S K, Mittal S, Sukhija U. Evolution of denture
base materials.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic
Society.2018; 13(9):p64-9.
2. Shetty M.S.,ShenoyK.K. An invitro analysis of wear
resistance of commercially available acrylic denture
teeth.Journal of indian prosthodontics
society2010;10(3):p149-153.
3. Yuzugullu B.,Acar, O.,Cetinsahin C.,Celik C.Effect of
different denture cleansers on surface roughness and
7
Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research |Vol. 7|Issue 11| November 2019