Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42561212
Physicomechanical properties of PMMA denture base resins reinforced with nanofibers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Rangel Bianca Tavares, Garcia Amanda Aparecida Maia Neves, Sugio Carolina Yoshi Campos, et al. · Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1590/1678-7765-2026-0076
Findings
9 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 0.5% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa) In vitro laboratory · 0.5% nanofiber concentration | MD 6.65 [-15.38, 28.69] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 44 participants |
| Patients wearing PMMA complete or partial dentures | PMMA reinforced with nanofibers (NFs) | Conventional (unmodified) PMMA | Physicomechanical properties Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | No clinical studies meeting the eligibility criteria were identified. Therefore, only in vitro studies were included in the final analysis. No studies found 0 studies |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 1% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa), post hoc exploratory analysis excluding Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 In vitro laboratory · 1% nanofiber concentration; post hoc exclusion of Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 | MD -13.78 [-18.72, -8.84] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 34 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 1% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa) In vitro laboratory · 1% nanofiber concentration | MD -2.16 [-24.12, 19.80] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 54 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 3% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa), post hoc exploratory analysis excluding Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 In vitro laboratory · 3% nanofiber concentration; post hoc exclusion of Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 | MD -16.59 [-22.03, -11.16] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 20 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 3% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa) In vitro laboratory · 3% nanofiber concentration | MD 0.45 [-39.99, 40.89] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 40 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 5% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa), post hoc exploratory analysis excluding Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 In vitro laboratory · 5% nanofiber concentration; post hoc exclusion of Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 | MD -23.77 [-29.75, -17.78] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 34 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 5% (wt%) nanofibers | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa) In vitro laboratory · 5% nanofiber concentration | MD -12.68 [-33.03, 7.67] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 58 participants |
| PMMA denture base resin specimens (in vitro) | PMMA reinforced with 0.5%, 1%, 3% or 5% (wt%) nanofibers, all concentrations combined | Conventional unmodified PMMA | Flexural strength (MPa), post hoc exploratory analysis excluding Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 In vitro laboratory · All concentrations combined; post hoc exclusion of Dai 2021 and Kawaguchi 2020 | MD -16.10 [-21.42, -10.79] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 112 participants |
Included primary studies 6
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dai 2021 Improving flexural properties of polymethyl methacrylate denture filled by carbon nanofibers under low filling content DOI:10.1088/2053-1591/abdd4f | 2021 | this review only | Flexural strength (MPa) | not extracted yet |
| Goncalves 2020 The role of polymeric nanofibers on the mechanical behavior of polymethyl methacrylate resin. PMID:32911228 | 2020 | this review only | Flexural strength (MPa) | not extracted yet |
| Kawaguchi 2020 Effect of cellulose nanofiber content on flexural properties of a model, thermoplastic, injection-molded, polymethyl methacrylate denture… PMID:31689576 | 2020 | this review only | Flexural strength (MPa) | not extracted yet |
| Rangel 2025 Incorporation of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) - cerium (Ce) nanofibers into acrylic resin for removable denture bases: evaluation of… PMID:41456645 | 2026 | this review only | Flexural strength (MPa) | not extracted yet |
| Uyar 2016 Electrospun nanofiber reinforcement of dental composites with electromagnetic alignment approach. PMID:26952482 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yamazaki 2020 Potential of pure cellulose nanofibers as a denture base material. PMID:33298639 | 2020 | this review only | Flexural strength (MPa) | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | PMMA denture base resins | PMMA denture base resins (autopolymerized, heat-polymerized, thermoplastic) (n=6 in vitro studies) |
| Intervention | PMMA reinforced with nanofibers | PMMA reinforced with carbon, ABS, polyamide-6, polystyrene, cellulose, PMMA-cerium or polyvinyl alcohol nanofibers, 0.05 to 23 wt% (n=6) |
| Comparison | Conventional PMMA | Conventional PMMA (n=6) |
| Outcomes | Flexural strength (primary); other physicomechanical properties | Flexural strength (n=6); impact strength, hardness, fracture resistance, elasticity, toughness, surface roughness, contact angle, color |
| Study designs | Clinical and in vitro studies with at least one control group | In vitro studies (n=6); no clinical studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: N/A | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: N/A | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | No | no |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |