Comparison of the Performance Parameters of BioHPP® and Biocetal® Used in the Production of Prosthetic Restorations in Dentistry—Part I: Mechanical Tests: An In Vitro Study

• Published in: Materials Vol. 18; no. 3; p. 561
• Main Authors: Kowalski, Robert, Frąckiewicz, Wojciech, Kwiatkowska, Magdalena, Światłowska-Bajzert, Małgorzata, Sobolewska, Ewa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 26.01.2025; MDPI
• Subjects: Abrasion resistance; Abrasive wear; Aesthetics; Bend strength; Biocompatibility; Deformation wear; Dental materials; Dentistry; Dentists; Dentures; Flexural strength; Hardness; Impact strength; Implants, Artificial; Injection molding; Mechanical properties; Mechanical tests; Modulus of rupture in bending; Parameters; Patients; Polymers; Prostheses; Prosthesis; Spectrum analysis; Tensile strength; Thermoplastics; Titanium; Transplants & implants; Tribology; Wear resistance; Poland; Japan; Germany; United Kingdom > UK; impact strength; hardness; tensile strength; flexural strength; abrasive wear; dentistry; BioHPP; Biocetal
• ISSN: 1996-1944; 1996-1944
• DOI: 10.3390/ma18030561

The aim of these in vitro studies was to determine and compare the mechanical and tribological performance of two commercially available thermoplastic materials, namely BioHPP and Biocetal, used in dental prosthetics. In order to perform the comparative tests of both materials, the dog-bone shaped samples were formed by an injection molding process as in standard polymer materials research, wherein Biocetal samples constituted the research group, and BioHPP samples served as a control group. In the presented studies, their mechanical parameters were reported and analyzed: namely, Shore’s hardness, unnotched impact strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, as well as abrasive wear resistance, obtained within appropriate tribological and mechanical tests. The Shapiro–Wilk test, Q–Q plot analysis, Grubbs test and Student’s t-test (p < 0.05) were used to statistically evaluate the results. The experimental results revealed that BioHPP material is characterized by higher hardness, impact strength, bending strength, and also lower “wet” abrasion wear if compared to Biocetal performance. However, it is subject to higher abrasive wear under “dry” conditions and reveals higher stiffness as well as lower ability to deform, which could affect a patient’s comfort during application. BioHPP, despite being a high-performance polymer material, also has some drawbacks that may affect the poorer long-term use of dentures in people producing less saliva.