Dental materials · Founded 2024–2025

The acrylic dentistry relies on, upgraded at the nanoscale.

DentResin is developing a PMMA acrylic resin modified with small amounts of silicon dioxide, cerium dioxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles. It is aimed at dental labs and clinicians who need acrylic parts with better hardness, density and thermal stability.

See the solutionView the results
3nanoparticle types tested: SiO₂, CeO₂, TiO₂
112.50 °Cglass transition with 0.5 wt% CeO₂ or SiO₂, vs 102.50 °C control
0.5 to 3 wt%low filler loadings studied
Material profile At a glance
Base resinExperimental PMMA acrylic
PMMA
FillersSiO₂ 15 nm, CeO₂ 25 nm, TiO₂ 50 nm
3 types
LoadingsEach filler tested at three concentrations
0.5, 1, 3 wt%
Why it matters: In the study, adding nanoparticles at low content improved the physical properties of the acrylic.
The problem

A workhorse material with known limits.

PMMA is one of the most common acrylics in dentistry and medicine, yet how different nanoparticle fillers change its physical properties has not been well explored.

Wear and hardness

Surface hardness matters for acrylic parts that face daily use in the mouth.

Heat and stability

Thermal stability affects how the resin behaves during processing and use.

Filler guesswork

Without side-by-side data, labs cannot tell which nanoparticle, at what dose, actually helps.

Our solution

The right nanoparticle, at the right low dose.

We compared three nanoparticles at three loadings in the same PMMA resin. Each filler improved different properties, so DentResin can match a formulation to the job.

Thermal

CeO₂ for stability and density

+10 °Cglass transition: 112.50 °C at 0.5 wt% vs 102.50 °C control
  • Higher thermal stability at 0.5 and 1 wt%
  • Highest density at 0.5, 1 and 3 wt%
  • Higher impact strength at 0.5 and 1 wt% in the abstract
Hardness

TiO₂ for a harder surface

1 wt%TiO₂ loading with higher Vickers hardness than other groups
  • Top hardness result in the study
  • Effective at a low filler content
  • 50 nm particles
Balance

SiO₂ as a light-touch option

15 nmsmallest particle size tested
  • 0.5 wt% matched the CeO₂ glass transition gain
  • 3 wt% raised hardness above control
  • Part of a three-filler toolkit
How it works

How we test each formulation

The same measurement set for every filler and loading.

  1. 1

    Formulate

    Blend SiO₂, CeO₂ or TiO₂ into PMMA at 0.5, 1 or 3 wt%, alongside an unfilled control.

    10 groupsn = 10
  2. 2

    Check dispersion

    Use transmission electron microscopy to see how the nanoparticles spread through the resin.

    TEM
  3. 3

    Measure heat behavior

    Thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry track stability and glass transition.

    TGADSC
  4. 4

    Test strength

    Measure density, Vickers hardness and impact strength, then compare fracture patterns.

    VickersImpact strength
Results

What the research shows

Laboratory (in vitro) materials testing of 10 groups with 10 specimens each, analysed with ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test.

10 × 10groups × specimens per group
102.50 → 112.50 °Cglass transition, control vs 0.5 wt% CeO₂ or SiO₂
1 wt% TiO₂highest Vickers hardness
CeO₂highest density at all three loadings
Effects reported for each nanoparticle
NanoparticleSizeReported effect
CeO₂25 nmHigher thermal stability and impact strength at 0.5 and 1 wt%; highest density at 0.5, 1 and 3 wt%
TiO₂50 nmHigher Vickers hardness at 1 wt% than other groups
SiO₂15 nmGlass transition 112.50 °C at 0.5 wt%
ControlNoneGlass transition 102.50 °C

Source: Machado-Santos et al., Dental and Medical Problems 60(4), 657–664 (2023). doi:10.17219/dmp/171844

Who it's for

Who it is for

Built for the people who make and fit acrylic dental parts.

Dental laboratories

  • Filler choices backed by comparative data
  • Low loadings from 0.5 wt%
  • Familiar PMMA processing base

Prosthodontists and dentists

  • Acrylic aimed at better hardness
  • Improved thermal stability
  • Evidence from controlled lab testing

Dental material makers

  • A ready comparison of three fillers
  • Clear starting formulations
  • Open to licensing and co-development
Where we are

Where we are today

DentResin is a laboratory-stage materials venture.

Lab data only

All results come from in vitro materials testing. No clinical use has been studied.

Dispersion to improve

Microscopy showed only partial dispersion of the nanoparticles, and impact strength stayed close to the control overall.

More properties to test

Color and surface roughness were not measured as results and are planned for future work, along with biocompatibility.

The team

The team

Founded in 2024–2025 by the research team behind the nanoparticle-modified acrylic resin study published in Dental and Medical Problems.

LM

Luciana Machado-Santos

Co-author of the DentResin research.

KB

Kusai Baroudi

Co-author of the DentResin research.

NS

Nikolaos Silikas

Co-author of the DentResin research.

JT

João Paulo Mendes Tribst

Co-author of the DentResin research.

MS

Mario Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti

Co-author of the DentResin research.

WB

William Cunha Brandt

Co-author of the DentResin research.

PL

Priscila Christiane Suzy Liporoni

Co-author of the DentResin research.

Frequently asked questions

What is PMMA?

Polymethyl methacrylate, a widely used acrylic in dentistry and medicine.

Which nanoparticles do you use?

Silicon dioxide (15 nm), cerium dioxide (25 nm) and titanium dioxide (50 nm), each tested at 0.5, 1 and 3 wt%.

Which one works best?

It depends on the goal. CeO₂ gave the best thermal stability and density, while 1 wt% TiO₂ gave the highest hardness.

Does it make the resin tougher?

Impact strength stayed close to the control overall, with CeO₂ doing better at 0.5 and 1 wt% according to the abstract.

Can I buy it?

Not yet. DentResin is at the laboratory research stage.

The research

Peer-reviewed science behind DentResin.

Read the full study behind the product.

Read the paper

Machado-Santos, L., Baroudi, K., Silikas, N., Tribst, J. P. M., Sinhoreti, M. A. C., Brandt, W. C., & Liporoni, P. C. S. (2023). Physical analysis of an acrylic resin modified by metal and ceramic nanoparticles. Dental and Medical Problems, 60(4), 657–664.

https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/171844