An ideal denture base must have good physical and mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and esthetic properties. Various polymeric materials have been used to construct denture bases. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is the most used biomaterial for dentures fabrication due to its favorable properties, which include ease of processing and pigmenting, sufficient mechanical properties, economy, and low toxicity. This article aimed to comprehensively review the current knowledge about denture base materials (DBMs) types, properties, modifications, applications, and construction methods. We searched for articles about denture base materials in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Journals covering topics including dental materials, prosthodontics, and restorative dentistry were also combed through. Denture base material variations, types, qualities, applications, and fabrication research published in English were considered. Although PMMA has several benefits and gained popularity as a denture base material, it has certain limitations and cannot be classified as an ideal biomaterial for fabricating dental prostheses. Accordingly, several studies have been performed to enhance the physical and mechanical properties of PMMA by chemical modifications and mechanical reinforcement using fibers, nanofillers, and hybrid materials. This review aimed to update the current knowledge about DBMs’ types, properties, applications, and recent developments. There is a need for specific research to improve their biological properties due to patient and dental staff adverse reactions to possibly harmful substances produced during their manufacturing and use.

This rerandomized clinical trial evaluated the influence of soft liners (SL) on biting force, pain perception, and the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of complete denture wearers. Twenty-eight completely edentulous patients complaining of ill-fitting lower complete dentures were selected to participate in the study from the Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Taibah University. All patients received new complete maxillary and mandibular dentures; then they were randomly divided into two groups (14 patients in each group): the acrylic-based SL group, in which the mandibular denture was lined with an acrylic-based soft liner, and the silicone-based SL group, in which the mandibular denture was lined with a silicone-based soft liner. OHRQoL and maximum bite force (MBF) were assessed in this study before denture relining (baseline), then at one month and three months after relining. The finding showed that both treatment modalities significantly improved the OHRQoL of included patients at one-month and three-month periods compared to baseline records (i.e., dentures before relining) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). However, there is no statistical difference between groups at the baseline, one-, and three-month follow-up periods. Regarding maximum biting force, when acrylic-based SL is compared to silicone-based SL, there is no statistical difference between groups at baseline (75 ± 31 and 83 ± 32 N) and one-month follow-up periods (145 ± 53 and 156 ± 49 N); however, after three months of function, the silicone-based group recorded 166 ± 57 N statistically significant high biting force compared to the acrylic-based group that recorded 116 ± 47 N (p < 0.05). Permanent soft denture liners positively affect maximum biting force, pain perception, and OHRQoL more than conventional dentures. After three months, silicone-based SL outperformed acrylic-based soft liners in maximum biting force, which may indicate better long-term results.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the midline mandibular lingual canals and foramina and their anatomic variations using CBCT scans. Methods: This study used retrospective analysis. A total of 320 CBCT scans were used to evaluate the study parameters, which comprised the presence or absence of the mandibular lingual foramen (MLF)/mandibular lingual canal (MLC) and its category, the distance between the buccal cortex and the start of the MLC, the distance between the inferior border of the mandible and the superior border of the foramen at its lingual and buccal terminals. The length and diameter of each canal at its lingual and buccal terminals. Results: MLC was found in all included CBCT scans. Out of 320 included CBCT scans, a single canal was represented by 30.9%, double canals (Supra with Infra -spinosum) configuration appeared in 54.7%, and triple canals (Supra-Inter-Infra) represented 14.7%. The supraspinosum canals averaged 5.81 ± 2.08 mm in length and 0.87 ± 0.30 mm in diameter at the lingual terminal. In terms of the number of canals, there was a significant difference between men and women (p ≤ 0.001), with 60% of the men in the sample having double canals and 43.1% of the women having single canals. Moreover, the male gender had a higher prevalence of triple canals (21.3% vs. 8.1%) than females. Males and females were distributed equally among the supraspinosum canals, with no statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.7). A considerable increase in the finding of interspinosum and infraspinosum canals was seen in the male sample (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: midline mandibular canals were found in all investigated CBCTs of the sample of both sexes; however, the anatomy and location of the MLF and canals varied significantly among the Saudi population.