Comparative Effect of Different Polymerization Techniques on

the Flexural and Surface Properties of Acrylic Denture Bases

Mohammed M. Gad, BDS, MSc,1 Shaimaa M. Fouda, BDS, MSc,1 Aws S. ArRejaie, BDS, CAGS, DSCD,
FRCDC,2 & Ahmad M. Al-Thobity, BDS, MDS, FRCD(C)1
1
Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
2
Prosthetic dental sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Keywords
Autoclave polymerization; flexural properties;
hardness; surface roughness; PMMA denture
base.
Correspondence
Dr. Mohammed Moustafa Ahmed Gad,
College of Dentistry, University of Dammam,
P.O. Box 1982 Dammam 31441, Saudi
Arabia. E-mail: dr.gad@hotmail.com
This study was supported by the deanship of
scientific research, University of Dammam
(Grant No. 2015210).
The authors declare that they have no conflict
of interests regarding the publication of this
manuscript.
Accepted January 15, 2017
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12605
Abstract
Purpose: Polymerization techniques have been modified to improve physical and
mechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) denture base, as have the
laboratory procedures that facilitate denture construction techniques. The purpose of
the present study was to investigate the effect of autoclave polymerization on flexural
strength, elastic modulus, surface roughness, and the hardness of PMMA denture base
resins.
Materials and Methods: Major Base and Vertex Implacryl heat-polymerized acrylic
resins were used to fabricate 180 specimens. According to the polymerization tech-
nique, tested groups were divided into: group I (water-bath polymerization), group II
(short autoclave polymerization cycle, 60°C for 30 minutes, then 130°C for 10 min-
utes), and group III (long autoclave polymerization cycle, 60°C for 30 minutes, then
130°C for 20 minutes). Each group was divided into two subgroups based on the ma-
terials used. Flexural strength and elastic modulus were determined by a three-point
bending test. Surface roughness and hardness were evaluated with a profilometer and
Vickers hardness (VH) test, respectively. One-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer
multiple-comparison test were used for results analysis, which were statistically sig-
nificant at p ࣘ 0.05.
Results: Autoclave polymerization showed a significant increase in flexural strength
and hardness of the two resins (p < 0.05). The elastic modulus showed a significant
increase in the major base resin, while a significant decrease was seen for Vertex
Implacryl in all groups (p < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference in
surface roughness between autoclave polymerization and water-bath polymerization
(p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Autoclave polymerization significantly increased the flexural proper-
ties and hardness of PMMA denture bases, while the surface roughness was within
acceptable clinical limits. For a long autoclave polymerization cycle, it could be used
as an alternative to water-bath polymerization.

Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) lacks the ideal criteria of
a denture base material due to its poor physical properties
such as low strength, deficient surface hardness, and poor wear
resistance.1 However, it is still the most commonly used ma-
terial for denture base construction since 1930,2 because of its
biocompatibility, light weight, reasonable price, easy manipu-
lation, and good esthetics.1,3 Several attempts were suggested
to improve physical properties of PMMA including modifying
PMMA itself to produce a co-polymerized high impact strength
resin,4 through using chemical modification, alternative poly-
merization method, or changing the polymerization cycle.5
PMMA is polymerized by many methods such as heat, light,
chemical, microwave energy, and autoclave polymerization.5,6
The most frequently used method is water bath processing
because it is easy and inexpensive but its main disadvantage
is the long processing time.7
Autoclave was first introduced in 1879 by Charles
Chamberland.8 Lately autoclave polymerization has been sug-
gested as an alternative to water bath technique.6 It is an easy
method and requires less time compared to water bath polymer-
ization technique.9 Autoclave theory depends on water heating
in a closed container to raise its temperature above the boil-
ing point and obtain a high-pressure saturated steam, resulting
in enhancement of the physical and mechanical properties of
PMMA by increasing the amount of monomer conversion.8,9
Denture base materials should possess adequate flexural
and surface properties for a successful denture and patient
satisfaction.4 Dentures are subjected to flexural stress during

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 1
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin
Table 1 Grouping, codes of tested specimens, and polymerization techniques
Group Materials
Group I Vertex Implacryl Water bath heat polymerization at 70° for 90 minutes followed by 100°C for 30 minutes
(Control) Major base
Group II Vertex Implacryl Autoclave polymerization (short cycle) autoclave polymerization at 60°C for 30 minutes followed by
Major base 130°C for 10 minutes
Group III Vertex Implacryl Autoclave polymerization (long cycle) autoclave polymerization at 60°C for 30 minutes followed by
Major base 130°C for 20 minutes
mastication. Additionally, they are usually supported by un-
even alveolar ridges due to the gradual irregular pattern of bone
resorption.10 Therefore, high flexural strength of denture base
material is needed to avoid denture fracture under flexural load-
ing. Denture base material should also have a high modulus of
elasticity to avoid permanent deformation that might be caused
by continuous stress or strain during mastication.11 The elas-
tic modulus exhibits the material rigidity, where the higher the
value, the lower the elastic deformation, the higher the rigidity
of the material.11
A smooth denture base surface is essential for patient com-
fort and reduced plaque accumulation as well as discoloration.
Surface properties are affected by hardness, which is the re-
sistance of a material to permanent surface indentation or pen-
etration. It also determines the ease of finishing of a dental
material.12,13 High surface roughness and low hardness would
damage the denture base material during finishing and result in
plaque adherence.14
Studies investigating the effect of autoclave polymerization
on the physical and mechanical properties of PMMA denture
base resin are still limited. Therefore, the aim of the present
study was to evaluate the effect of autoclave polymerization on
some properties of different denture base resins and compare
it with water bath polymerization. The hypothesis of this study
was that autoclave polymerization could improve the properties
of PMMA denture base.
Materials and methods
A total of 180 specimens were fabricated using metal molds
(65 × 10 × 2.5 mm3 ) for the flexural strength test and (12 ×
12 × 3 mm3 ) for the surface roughness and hardness tests ac-
cording to ANSI/ADA specification number 12.15 The sample
size calculation assumed a minimum difference of the means
between baseline versus autoclave curing (60°C for 30 minutes
and 130°C for 10 minutes) resulting in 81.24 ± 5.99 versus
84.0 ± 5.19, in line with the study by Durkan et al.9 Next, the
required sample size at 80% power, with a 5% level of sig-
nificance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated
for 60 specimens for each group (total 180 specimens). The
World Health Organization (WHO) sample size calculator was
employed, based on the formula
  2 
n = 2σ 2 Z1−α/2 +Z1−β /(μ1 −μ2 )2
The specimens were fabricated following the conventional
method. Molds were waxed up (Set-up Wax; Cavex, Haarlem,
2 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 
Gad et al
Polymerization technique Code
WBV
WBM
ASV
ASM
ALV
ALM
The Netherlands), then invested in dental stone (Fujirock EP;
GC, Leuven, Belgium). The flasks (61B Two Flask Compress;
Handler Manufacturing, Westfield, NJ) were kept for 1 hour af-
ter stone setting, then immersed in boiling water for 5 minutes
for dewaxing. Then mold spaces were cleaned, and a thin film
of separating media (Isolmajor, Major Prodotti Dentari SPA,
Moncalieri, Italy) was applied. Commercially available heat-
polymerized PMMA Major base (MB) (Major base 20; Major
Prodotti Dentari SPA) and Vertex Implacryl (VI) (Vertex-Dental
B. V., Zeist, The Netherlands) were used according to the manu-
facturer’s instructions. These two materials were selected based
on the differences in their composition. MB acrylic resin is a
conventional heat-polymerized PMMA, while VI is considered
a high-impact rubber-reinforced PMMA, where the PMMA
polymer is modified by the addition of a rubber compound
to enhance the material’s strength. The main composition of
the heat-polymerized acrylic resin powder includes PMMA,
benzoyl peroxide as an initiator, and other chemicals in small
percentages, while the monomer contains methyl methacrylate
and glycol dimethacrylate, as a crosslinking agent.6,18 The liq-
uid/powder ratio of the polymer was mixed in a porcelain jar,
then kneaded by hand until achieving a doughy consistency
and packed into the mold. After the flasks were clamped, clo-
sure was performed under force of 20 kN and maintained for
30 minutes. The flasks were kept at room temperature for 1
hour. Although all specimens were prepared in the same man-
ner, simple random sampling was performed by using the slip
envelope method after the specimens had been packed in the
dental flasks to control all factors, such as composition, size,
and shape, which might cause differences between specimens.
The specimens were divided randomly into three groups ac-
cording to the polymerization technique used: group I (water
bath method), group II (short cycle with heat), and group III
(long cycle with heat) (Table 1).
Polymerization techniques
Group I (water bath method) specimens were submerged in
water inside a heat-curing unit (KaVo Elektrotechnisches Werk
GmbH, Leutkirch, Germany) and processed at 70°C for 90
minutes followed by 100°C for 30 minutes. For the autoclave
(Ritter M11 UltraClave; Midmark International, Spain) poly-
merization, specimens were exposed to one of the following
processing cycles: a short cycle (group II) at 60°C for 30 min-
utes followed by 130°C for 10 minutes, or a long cycle (group
III) at 60°C for 30 minutes followed by 130°C for 20 minutes.
After polymerization of all specimens, the flasks were brought
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Gad et al
down to room temperature. The excess resin of deflasked speci-
mens was removed with a tungsten carbide bur (HM251FX-040
HP; Meisinger, Centennial, CO) and polished with an acrylic
polisher (HM251FX-060; Meisinger). The polished specimens
were inspected to ensure they had a smooth surface without any
voids or porosity; then they were kept in distilled water at 37°C
for 72 hours.
Testing procedures
Both flexural strength and the elastic modulus were evaluated
using a three-point bending test that was performed at room
temperature using a universal testing machine (Instron 8871;
Instron Co., Norwood, MA). Specimens were soaked in a water
bath for 48 ± 2 hours at 37°C prior to testing. Each specimen
was placed horizontally on a three-point flexure apparatus with
50 mm distance between two vertical supports. The vertical
load (a 50 kgf load cell) was applied midway between the
supports with a 5 mm/min crosshead speed until the specimen
fractured, and the fracture load was recorded. The following
formula was used to calculate the flexural strength values of
each specimen:16
FS = 3FL/2bh2
where the variables consist of the following:
(FS) flexural strength (MPa),
(F) fracture load (N),
(L) distance between the two supports,
(b) specimen width, and
(h) specimen thickness.
The results from the flexural strength test were used to cal-
culate the elastic modulus using the formula16
E = FL3 /4bh3 d
where the variables consist of the following:
(E) elastic modulus (MPa),
(F) load (N) at a convenient point (p) in the straight line of
the tension/deformation curve (elastic deformation),
(L) distance between the two supports,
(b) specimen width,
(h) specimen thickness, and
(d) deflection in that point (p).
A noncontact optical interferometric profilometer (Contour
Gt-K1 optical profiler; Bruker Nano, Inc., Tucson, AZ) was
used to measure the surface roughness (Ra) of the acrylic spec-
imens at a 0.01 mm resolution. The machine was positioned on
a vibration isolation table in a noiseless room. Each specimen
was placed horizontally underneath a standard camera at 5×
magnification, and an area was scanned of approximately 1.3 ×
1.0 μm2 . Each specimen’s surface was scanned at five sites ra-
dially (across each specimen), and the average was calculated
per specimen. The acquired images (Fig 1) were then analyzed
using a software package (Vision64; Bruker) to determine pit
characteristics, and a final Ra value was calculated for each
specimen (representing the average roughness in μm).17
A VH test was performed using a hardness tester (Wil-
son Hardness; ITW Test & Measurement, GmbH, Shanghai,
China). The testing device consists of an indenter with a
0.8 mm blunt pointer, and it is connected to a digital scale.
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin
After immersion, specimens were removed from the distilled
water and placed horizontally on the device table under a 300
g load for 15 seconds, while the load was applied using a di-
amond tip, which was pressed down firmly and quickly on
the indenter. The maximum readings were recorded as the VH
measurements. The measurements taken with the device (in
mm) were transferred to a microprocessor that calculated the
hardness values and displayed the results. A total of five inden-
tations were made at various exact points on each specimen,
and the means of the individual specimens were averaged.
Statistical analysis
The software package SPSS-20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was
used to perform statistical data analysis. The results of the flex-
ural strength, elastic modulus, surface roughness, and hardness
values were transformed into arithmetic mean and standard
deviation (SD). For intragroup comparison, in relation to the
control versus various stages of flexural strength, elastic mod-
ulus, surface roughness, and hardness, a Kruskal-Wallis one-
way ANOVA was performed. For comparison between groups,
a Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison test was used. A p-value
ࣘ 0.05 was considered a statistically significant result.
Results
The mean value and SD of flexural strength values are pre-
sented in Table 2 and Figure 2A. Autoclave polymerization
significantly increased flexural strength of PMMA (df = 5,
f = 159.41, p < 0.05). Higher flexural strength was found
in both VI and MB materials subjected to long-cycle auto-
clave polymerization compared to water bath polymerization;
however, no significant differences were found between
the short- and long-cycle autoclave polymerized specimens.
Among autoclaved groups, the highest flexural strength (FS)
value was found in VI material that was autoclave polymerized
using a long cycle (88.20 MPa), while the lowest FS value was
found with MB material that was autoclave polymerized using
a short cycle (85.24 MPa).
The results of the elastic modulus for both VI and MB ma-
terials are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2B. A significant
effect of autoclave polymerization on the elastic modulus of MB
(df = 5, f = 4.87, p < 0.05) was found. A substantial increase
in the elastic modulus was found in MB material subjected
to autoclave polymerization in both long and short cycles as
compared to VI polymerized using the water bath method. No
significant differences were found between MB polymerized
using the water bath method and VI subjected to either a short
or a long autoclave polymerization cycle (p > 0.05). For auto-
clave polymerization, VI significantly exhibited a lower mean
elastic modulus compared to MB, whether it was polymerized
using either a short or a long cycle (p < 0.05).
The mean values and SDs of surface roughness and hardness
values are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 2C. Autoclave polymer-
ization did not show a significant effect on the surface roughness
of the VI material (df = 2, f = 2.55, p = 0.0965) or MB (df = 2,
f = 1.66, p = 0.208). Moreover, there was no statistically signif-
icant difference between polymerizing acrylic resins in a water
bath or an autoclave. The MB material recorded lower surface
3
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin Gad et al

Table 2 Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test for flexural strength and elastic modulus (MPa) of denture base resins

Flexural strength Elastic modulus

Group Mean ± SD SSD Mean ± SD SSD

WBV 83.16 ± 2.4 WBM, ASM, ASV, ALM, ALV 2367.04 ± 36.99 ASM, ALM
ASV 86.99 ± 1.4 WBM, WBV, ASM, ALV 2373.26 ± 14.34
ALV 88.20 ± 2.12 WBM, WBV, ASM, ASV 2373.98 ± 17.
WBM 81.27 ± 2.5 WBV, ASM, ASV, ALM, ALV 2370.24 ± 31.79
ASM 85.24 ± 1.7 WBM, WBV, ASV, ALM, ALV 2380.25 ± 13.61 WBV
ALM 87.72 ± 2.49 WBM, WBV, ASM 2380.28 ± 13.28 WBV

Multiple comparison tests for all pairwise differences between the means. SSD, Statically significant difference from group p ࣘ 0.05

Table 3 Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test for surface roughness (μm) and hardness (Kg/mm2 ) of denture base resins

Surface roughness Surface hardness

Group Mean ± SD SSD Mean ± SD SSD

WBV 0.10889 ± 0.01566 ASM, WBM, ALM 398.84 ± 13.7 ASM, ASV, ALM, ALV
ASV 0.11039 ± 0.00918 ASM, WBM, ALM 405.62 ± 9.4 WBM, WBV, ALV
ALV 0.1063 ± 0.0102 ASM, WBM 410.32 ± 5.4 WBM, WBV, ASM, ASV
WBM 0.10092 ± 0.01177 ALV, WBV, ASV 395.29 ± 12.5 ASM, ASV, ALM, ALV
ASM 0.09984 ± 0.0065 ALV, WBV, ASV 403.91 ± 7.7 WBM, WBV, ALV
ALM 0.10185 ± 0.00432 WBV, ASV 408.07 ± 7.7 WBM, WBV

Multiple comparison tests for all pairwise differences between the means. SSD, Statically significant difference from group p ࣘ 0.05

roughness values in comparison to VI with different polymer-
ization techniques (df = 5, f = 16.51, p < 0.05). Figure 1 shows
the average surface roughness values using parameters with two
colors: red and blue. Red exhibits the peak’s height, while blue
exhibits the valley’s depth, or deviation, from a mean line.
The graduated colors between red and blue and readings for the
top and bottom of this parameter represent the whole surface
roughness.
The results of the analysis of the VH data (Table 3) revealed
that autoclave polymerization resulted in a significant increase
in hardness for both the VI and MB resins in comparison to
water bath polymerization (p < 0.05). The VI material resulted
in significantly higher VH values (p < 0.05) compared with the
MB material. In addition, long-cycle polymerization resulted
in significantly higher VH values for both resins when com-
pared with the control group (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2D). For the two
resin types, no significant differences were found among the VI
material polymerized using a short cycle or the MB material
polymerized using either a short or a long cycle (p > 0.05).
Discussion
This research revealed that the polymerization technique can
affect resins’ properties, and autoclave polymerization was sug-
gested as one polymerization technique that results in a com-
plete denture with satisfactory strength and resistance to frac-
ture. The main advantages of the autoclave were the abilities
to heat water to a higher temperature above its boiling point
and to increase the pressure due to the constant volume of the
container.9 Proper flexural and surface properties of denture
base materials are a necessity. A longer denture material’s clin-
ical service life affects the oral health of the tissues in contact
with the denture and the ability to perform adequate mechanical
cleansing.18 In view of these requirements, this in vitro study
was performed to evaluate the FS, elastic modulus, surface
roughness, and hardness properties of PMMA denture bases
polymerized by autoclave and compared to the water bath heat
polymerization method. Based on the results of this study, the
hypothesis that autoclave polymerization improves the proper-
ties of PMMA denture bases was accepted.
The FS test was particularly valuable in comparing denture
base materials, during which a bending force was applied to
the denture during mastication. The FS is a mixture of com-
pressive, tensile, and shear strengths, which directly reflect the
material’s rigidity and its fracture resistance.19 According to
this study’s FS test results, there was a significant difference
between the autoclaved materials’ group and the control group,
wherein the autoclave polymerization of both tested denture
base materials significantly increased the materials’ FS. A non-
significant difference in FS between the short and long cycle
of autoclave polymerization was found. The increased pressure
and elevated boiling temperature within the autoclave speeded
up the initial polymerization reaction, increased the degree of
polymerization, and reduced residual monomer, which subse-
quently improved these polymers’ strength.20,21
Additionally, VI showed a slight increase in FS when cre-
ated using a long cycle over a short cycle. This could be at-
tributed to the resin type, in which a rubber compound was
added to an acrylic resin to produce a resin with high strength,
which is called a high-impact acrylic resin.18 Moreover, this
type of resin is made with a high degree of homogeneity that
prevents changes within this material, as the bonds between

4 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Gad et al Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin

Figure 1 Representative surface roughness images for (A), VI specimens polymerized by water bath method. (B), MB specimens polymerized
by water bath method. (C), VI specimens polymerized by short-cycle autoclave. (D), MB specimens polymerized by short-cycle autoclave. (E), VI
specimens polymerized by long-cycle autoclave. (F), MB specimens polymerized by long cycle autoclave.

the molecules are more stable under higher temperatures and
pressures.22,23 Heat treating over a longer time and increased
pressure also increases cross-linking. As a result of cross-
linking, a 3D network formed an adequate number of bridges
between macromolecules that led to the increased strength and
rigidity of the resin.20 Similar to the results of the present study,
Durkan et al9 evaluated the effects of autoclave polymerization
on the FS of high impact denture base resins and observed that
autoclave polymerization significantly increased the FS when
compared to the water bath polymerization. While the results
of this study were in disagreement with a previous study that
found a nonsignificant difference in FS between autoclave and
water-bath polymerization methods,6 these conflicting results
may be due to differences in the autoclave polymerization cy-
cles or materials.
Denture base resins should withstand mastication-induced
stress without permanent deformation; therefore, a material
with high elastic modulus is required. Due to the flexing ac-
tion of the maxillary dentures, midline fractures of the denture
frequently occur. To resist fractures and permanent deforma-
tion, the denture base should have satisfactory FS and elastic
modulus properties. This study’s results revealed that autoclave

Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 

C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists 5
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin
A Flexural strength (MPa)
vertex Implacryl Major base
88.2
87.72
86.99
85.24
83.61
81.27
Control Short cycle Long cycle
B Elastic modulus (MPa)
vertex Implacryl Major base
2380.25
2373.98
2373.26
2370.24
2367.04
Control Short cycle Long cycle
Figure 2 (A-D) Graphical depiction of mean values of denture base resins with different polymerization method. (A) mean values of flexural strength
test of studied group; (B) mean values of elastic modulus test of studied group; (C) mean values of surface roughness test of studied group; (D) mean
values of hardness test of studied group.
polymerization led to a statistically significant increase in elas-
tic modulus of both VI and MB resins in comparison to the
water bath polymerization method; however, there were no sta-
tistically significant differences in the elastic modulus between
the short and long autoclave polymerization cycles. The elas-
tic modulus of the high-impact resin (VI) was significantly
lower than that of the traditional resin (MB). Hence, the elas-
tic modulus reflected the stiffness of a material,24 where the
high-impact resin exhibited less stiffness than the traditional
resin. Those findings agreed with the findings of this current
study, in which VI exhibited less stiffness. Therefore, greater
deformation occurred in the VI material when compared with
the MB material.25 This finding is in agreement with a previous
study, which reported that a high impact acrylic resin exhibited
a low elastic modulus when compared to a traditional resin.18
In addition, O’Brien reported that the addition of rubber to a
high-impact resin improved the impact strength but reduced
the stiffness, which clarified the lower elastic modulus of the
high-impact resin found in this study.26
The surface roughness of denture base materials should be
evaluated before their use in the mouth. Materials with rough
surfaces can cause patients discomfort, denture base discol-
6 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 
Gad et al
Surface Roughness(um)
C Vertex Implacryl Major base
0.11039
0.10889
0.1063
0.1018
0.10092
0.09984
Control Short cycle Long cycle
D Hardness (Kg/mm2)
vertex Implacryl Major base
2380.28
410.32
408.07
405.62
403.91
398.4
395.29
Control Short cycle Long cycle
oration, and could also contribute to microbial colonization and
biofilm formation and consequently, denture stomatitis.12 The
results of this study showed that the autoclave polymerization
of acrylic resin material revealed a statistically nonsignificant
difference in surface roughness in comparison to the control
group. These results coincided with those of Nazhat et al,27
who found that polymerization techniques did not affect the sur-
face roughness of an acrylic resin denture base, in disagreement
with previous studies that found a statistically significant differ-
ence in surface roughness of autoclave polymerization.28 These
differing results may be due to using an alternative autoclave
polymerization cycle (120°C for 45 minutes) or using another
denture base material. Based on the results of this study, there
are no adverse effects on the surface roughness of the tested
groups. In addition, the Ra values for all the tested groups were
lower than the reported clinically acceptable value (0.2 μm).
This value is significant because when increased above the ac-
cepted value, plaque accumulation occurs in the prostheses.15,29
Regardless of the polymerization technique employed, the Ra
value is probably interrelated with the air bubbles incorporated
into the material during mixing, which clustered close to the
surface, increasing surface roughness.27
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Gad et al
Hardness may be broadly defined as the ability to resist
permanent surface indentation or penetration under a specific
load.30 Hardness is an important surface property, which can be
used to evaluate the rigidity of the polymer and the degree of
conversion of the acrylic resin during the polymerization reac-
tion through a micro-VH test.30 According to the results of the
current study, there was a highly significant difference in surface
hardness between the autoclave polymerization groups and the
control group, where the higher VH values were reported with
autoclave polymerization (both short and long cycle), while
the lowest hardness values were found in the water-bath poly-
merization groups. The results of this study coincided with
the results obtained by Ali et al31 and Ayaz et al,32 who con-
cluded that autoclave polymerization significantly increased
surface hardness. Considering that the hardness should estab-
lish an inversely proportional relationship with the amount of
residual monomer,33 it is possible that the increase in hardness
was related to further polymerization and decreased residual
monomers, which probably overcame the plasticizing effect of
water uptake.34 The plasticizing effect of residual monomers
reduces the polymer interchange forces so that deformation
happens simply under load during a hardness test.35,36
The increases in the surface hardness within autoclave poly-
merized materials’ mean values over those of water-bath poly-
merization mean values occurred due to the pressure. For exam-
ple, one explanation for the reduction in the residual monomer
content within the present study may be the diffusion of the
unreacted molecules out of the polymer matrix through the ac-
tion of the pressure that was applied during autoclave poly-
merization. Thus, the pressure played an important role in
speeding up the initial polymerization by raising the temper-
ature of the steam and elevating the boiling temperature of
the monomers, and therefore might suggest a reduction in the
residual monomer content, which is considered an advantage
of using pressure that could be obtained using the autoclave.21
In contrast, Ming et al37 studied the effects of a pressure cooker
with automatic controls on the hardness of denture base resins
and reported that pressure cooker polymerization at different
pressures and durations showed statically nonsignificant differ-
ences in comparison to the water-bath polymerization method.
The highest mean value of hardness was reported in the long
polymerization over the short polymerization, and the low-
est values were found in the water-bath polymerization group.
That research completed polymerization over long polymer-
ization cycles; therefore, a reduction in the residual monomer
content and reduced porosity may have occurred during the
long polymerization cycle, which proved to be better than the
short polymerization cycle when compared to the water bath
polymerization cycle.7 This variation of hardness with differ-
ent types and lengths of polymerization cycles indicated that a
continued polymerization reaction could change the hardness
of the denture base materials.37
The clinical implications of this study include the facts that
autoclave polymerization can be simply accomplished under
laboratory conditions with available equipment. Moreover, au-
toclave polymerization can be implemented within a dental
practice, after mechanical testing under simulated oral condi-
tions, biological evaluations to investigate the effect of auto-
clave polymerization on denture base resins, and investigation
Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin
into aging effects are completed, all of which contribute to the
durability of a denture base.12
Limitations of the present study included the fact that more
relevant clinical investigations are required to verify this study’s
results. In addition, the laboratory circumstances of the present
investigation did consider the inherent changes in the materi-
als induced by long periods of use under oral fluid conditions.
In addition, we tested two autoclave polymerization protocols
and heated the specimens within two different time periods;
however, the changes of resins’ properties after autoclave heat-
ing for longer periods and with other protocols are unknown.
Further investigations should explore the effects of autoclave
polymerization on the residual monomer content, the degree of
conversion of different commercial brands of PMMA, and the
effects contributed by time and temperature.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1. Autoclave polymerization revealed higher flexural prop-
erties for PMMA denture base resins, as compared to the
water bath polymerization method.
2. No significant effects of autoclave polymerization were
detected on surface roughness, while a significant in-
crease in the hardness of the PMMA denture base resins
occurred.
3. Long polymerization cycle times exhibited better values
in comparison to both short cycles and the water bath
method.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Re-
search, University of Dammam, for providing a research grant
for this study (Grant No. 2015210). The authors would like to
deeply thank Mr. Hussien Almussalm and Mr. Abhish Vargh-
ese for their assistance in specimen preparation and mechanical
testing; Dr. Lindsey Mateo for assistance in mechanical test-
ing; and Dr. Abdul Majeed and Mr. Intisar Siddiqui for their
assistance in the statistical analysis.
References
1. Cheng YY, Cheung WL, Chow TW: Strain analysis of maxillary
complete denture with three-dimensional finite element method.
J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:309-318
2. Peyton FA: History of resins in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am
1975;19:211-222
3. Anusavice KJ: Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials (ed 11).
Philadelphia, Saunders, 2003, p.73
4. Jagger DC, Harrison A, Jandt KD: The reinforcement of
dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:185-194
5. Azzari MJ, Cortizo MS, Alessandrini JL: Effect of the curing
conditions on the properties of an acrylic denture base resin
microwave polymerized. J Dent 2003;31:463-468
6. Abdulwahhab SS: High-impact strength acrylic denture base
material processed by autoclave. J Prosthodont Res
2013;57:288-293
7
Properties of Autoclave Polymerized Acrylic Resin
7. Banerjee R, Banerjee S, Prabhudesai PS, et al: Influence of the
processing technique on the flexural fatigue strength of denture
base resins: an in vitro investigation. Indian Dent Assoc
2010;21:391-395
8. Chamberland C: Chronological Reference Marks. Paris, Pasteur
Institute, 2007, pp. 1-19
9. Durkan R, Ozel MB, Bağiş B, et al: In vitro comparison of
autoclave polymerization on the transverse strength of denture
base resins. Dent Mater J 2008;27:640-642
10. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Shaull KL, et al: Flexural and
fatigue strengths of denture base resin. J Prosthet Dent
2008;100:47-51
11. McCabe JF, Walls AG: Applied Dental Materials (ed 8). Oxford,
Blackwell Science, 1998, p. 97
12. Radford DR, Sweet SP, Challacombe SJ, et al: Adherence of
Candida albicans to denture base materials with different surface
finishes. J Dent 1998;26:577-583
13. Menaka A, Suman B, Nancy D, et al: Evaluating surface
roughness of a polyamide denture base material in comparison
with poly (methyl methacrylate). J Oral Sci 2010;52:577-581
14. Bahrani F, Safari A, Vojdani M, et al: Comparison of hardness
and surface roughness of two denture bases polymerized by
different methods. World J Dent 2012;3:171-175
15. American Dental Association specification No. 12 for denture
base polymers. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;90:451-458
16. International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry- base
polymers - Part 1: denture base polymers. Volume 20795-1:2008.
Geneva: ISO; 2008
17. Cohen DK: Glossary of Surface Texture Parameters. Livonia,
MI, Metrology LLC, 2009
18. Meng TR, Latta MA: Physical properties of four acrylic denture
base resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;4:93-100
19. Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Allen SM, et al: An investigation into the
transverse and impact strength of high strength denture base
acrylic resins. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29;263-267
20. Anusavice KJ: Phillips’s Sciences of Dental Materials (ed 11).
Philadelphia, Saunders, 2007, pp. 162-169
21. Undurwade JH, Sidhaye AB: Curing acrylic resin in a domestic
pressure cooker: a study of residual monomer content.
Quintessence Int 1989;20:123-129.
22. Walker KA, Morkoski LJ, Deeter GA: Crosslinking chemistry
for high- performance polymer network. Polymer
1994;35:5012-5017
8 Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2017) 1–8 
Gad et al
23. Dogan A, Bek B, Cevik NN, et al: The effect of preparation
conditions of acrylic denture base materials on the level of
residual monomer, mechanical properties and water absorption. J
Dent 1995;23:313-318
24. Craig RG, Powers JM, Wataha JC: Dental Materials, Properties
and Manipulation (ed 8). St. Louis, Mosby, p. 24
25. Ajaj-ALKordy NM, Alsaadi MH: Elastic modulus and flexural
strength comparisons of high-impact and traditional denture base
acrylic resins. Saudi Dent J 2014;26:15-18
26. O’Brien WJ: Dental Materials and Their Selection (ed 2).
Chicago, Quintessence, 1997, pp. 86-94
27. Nazhat NY, Basshi YQ, Taqa AA: An autoclave effect on the
powder of poly methylmethacrylate. Int J Dent Sci Res
2014;2:69-72
28. Manappallila JJ: Basic Dental Materials (ed 2). New Delhi,
Jaypee Brothers, 2007.
29. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M: Comparison of surface
roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface
roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the
literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269
30. Craig RG, Powers JM: Restorative Dental Materials. St. Louis,
Mosby, 2002, p. 27
31. Ali IL, Yunus N: Abu-Hassan MI: Hardness, flexural strength,
and flexural modulus comparisons of three differently cured
denture base systems. J Prosthodont 2008;17:545-549
32. Ayaz EA, Durkan R, Koroglu A, et al: Comparative effect of
different polymerization techniques on residual monomer and
hardness properties of PMMA-based denture resins. J Appl
Biomater Funct Mater 2014;30:228-233
33. Jagger RG: Effect of curing cycle on some properties of PMMA
denture base materials. J Oral Rehabil 1978;5:151-157
34. Braun KO, Mello JA, Rached RN, et al: Surface texture and some
properties of acrylic resins submitted to chemical polishing. J
Oral Rehabil 2003;30:91-98
35. Vallittu PK, Miettinen V, Alakuijala P: Residual monomer
content and its release into water from denture base materials.
Dent Mater 1995;11:338-342
36. Lee SY, Lai YL, Hsu TS: Influence of polymerization conditions
on monomer elution and microhardness of autopolymerized
polymethyl methacrylate resin. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:179-183
37. Ming XC, Changxi S, Weishou H: Rapid processing procedure
for heat polymerization of poly (methylmethacrylate) in a
pressure cooker with automatic controls. J Prosthet Dent
1996;76:445-447
C 2017 by the American College of Prosthodontists