Introduction

urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:A116C711-4C18-5A38-8F1E-5E97753A8A64

Folia Medica

0204-8043 1314-2143

Plovdiv Medical University

10.3897/folmed.65.e90085

90085

Original Article

Dental medicine

Evaluation of the flexural strength of orthodontic acrylic resin incorporated with propolis nanoparticles: an in vitro study

Akhavan

Azam

1 Arab

Sepideh

2 Eslamiamirabadi

Negin

3 Sodagar

Ahmad

2 Safari

Fatemeh

safarii_fatemeh@yahoo.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-3030 2

Radiation Applications Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute

Tehran

Iran 2

Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Tehran

Iran 3

Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

McGill University

Montréal

Canada

Corresponding author: Fatemeh Safari, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Email: safarii_fatemeh@yahoo.com

2023

31 10 2023

65 5 821 827 5D5BA061-0437-5C0D-ACFF-FDC918DEB94C 07 07 2022 25 10 2022

Azam Akhavan, Sepideh Arab, Negin Eslamiamirabadi, Ahmad Sodagar, Fatemeh Safari

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Aim: Nanopropolis has become the subject of interest in medicine and dentistry as a natural product due to its outstanding properties, particularly antimicrobial activity. This study aimed at investigating the effect of nanopropolis on flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).

Materials and methods: Three groups of two acrylic resin brands namely Acropars and Triplex containing 0 (control group), 0.5%, and 1% of nanopropolis were prepared in 64×10.0×3.3 mm according to ISO 20795-2 (2013). Fifteen samples were allocated to each concentration. Flexural strength was determined following immersion in water and incubation at 37°C for 50±2 hours using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5±1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t-test. P<0.05 was set as statistical significance.

Results: Control groups of Acropars and Triplex showed the highest mean flexural strength within their own group which both were higher than the recommended 50 MPa. The mean flexural strength of Triplex incorporated with 0.5 and 1% of nanopropolis was higher than that of Acropars with the same percentage.

Conclusions: The mean flexural strength of Triplex remained above the recommended value of 50 MPa after incorporation of both 0.5 and 1% nanopropolis. However, that of Acropars dropped below it.

Keywords acrylic resin flexural strength nanopropolis

Introduction

In fact, high prevalence of malocclusion amongst growing children entails interceptive orthodontic treatments^[1–4] that are commonly performed using removable appliances. In addition, removable appliances have been used as retainers since the 1920s and still remain as practical means for retention.^[5] These appliances are mostly fabricated from PMMA due to its various advantages including ease of processing, fitting accuracy, convenience, and reasonable cost.‌^[6] Despite all perfect features, it is highly prone to colonization of microorganisms^[7–9] which may lead to dental caries, periodontal diseases, and chronic atrophic candidiasis. Therefore, several efforts have been employed to introduce antibacterial efficacy to PMMA. In this sense, PMMA has been incorporated with different antimicrobial agents such as silver nanoparticles^[10], silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide^[11], carbon nanotubes^[12], chlorhexidine diacetate^[13], 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC), and quaternary ammonium dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate (DMAHDM)^[14], polyethylene oxide (PEO)‌^[15], nanodiamonds^[16] and so on . Despite the incorporation of PMMA with a range of antibacterial agents, there is still lack of consensus in terms of their clinical effectiveness.‌^[17] In this regards, the contemporary trend towards natural products has drawn attentions to propolis (bee glue) as a promising ingredient for both medical and dental applications.^[18,19] Propolis has a wide range of outstanding biological scopes including antioxidant and anti-ageing^[20], anticancer^[21], immunomodulatory^[22], antidiabetic^[23], anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic^[24] properties along with wound healing promotion^[25]. Moreover, several investigations have confirmed its activity against wide spectrum of bacteria^[26], viruses^[27] and fungi^[28]. Additionally, propolis has been utilized vastly in dentistry to alleviate dentin hypersensitivity and aphthous stomatitis, prevent dental caries, pulp capping, storing the avulsed teeth and to culture the PDL cells^[29] and so on. Propolis mouthwash and paste inhibit Streptococci mutans and Lactobacilli. Also, propolis paste improves the healing of periodontal socket after extraction by 90% in human subjects.‌^[30] The inhibitory effect of 300 µg/mL propolis nanoparticle against E. faecalis for the purpose of root canal disinfection is comparable with 6% NaOCL and 2% CHX.^[31] Furthermore, PMMA containing 1 or 2% of propolis nanoparticles has presented antibacterial activity against common oral pathogens such as Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Candida albicans.^[32] Therefore, propolis can be considered as a promising agent to incorporate with PMMA due to its numerous beneficial attributes. In spite of that, the effect of propolis on the mechanical properties of PMMA should be taken into account as a crucial requirement in order to endure the loads imposed in the oral cavity. To the best of our knowledge, there is lack of evidence in this respect.

Aim

Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effect of incorporating nanopropolis (NPS) on flexural strength of PMMA in order to induce antimicrobial features in PMMA without compromising its mechanical properties.

Materials and methods Nanopropolis preparation

Pure propolis was purchased from Gold Zagros (Lorestan, IRAN). Twenty grams of pure propolis was dissolved in 100 ml of ethanol for 7 days at room temperature and then filtered through filter papers (Wattman-40Ashless-Germany) to remove rough particles. Afterwards, pure propolis particles were isolated by adding the solution to distilled water at 1:10 ratio. The suspension was placed in an ultrasonic bath for 20-30 minutes to obtain propolis nanoparticles. The achieved colloidal NPS was centrifuged at 9000 rpm for 20 minutes using a centrifuge machine (HeroLab-22000 rpm, Germany) and then filtered by filter papers. Nanoparticles were verified under scanning electron microscope (SEM; Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at ×65000 magnification (Fig. 1).

The colloid was poured to plates and placed in a freezer at −80°C for 20 minutes followed by freeze drying (Freeze dryer, LYOTRAP, LTE scientific, UK) at −70°C for 24 hours to obtain powder form of NPS particles.

6A1FFF87-317B-5B1E-82D9-1C8B642AEA8F

Figure 1.

SEM image of NPS at ×65000 magnification.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/929347 Sample preparation <italic>Mold preparation</italic>

Stainless still molds were machined in 65×12×4 mm considering the shrinkage of polymer. Impressions were taken of molds using the putty-wash technique (Silicone impression material, Hydro, Detax, Germany).

Sample groups

Two commercial acrylic resin groups including Acropars (Marlic Medical Industries Co, Tehran, Iran) and Triplex (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were selected. Three subgroups, each including 15 samples, were prepared for the examination: one control group comprising acrylics without NPS and two experimental groups consisting of acrylic resins incorporated with 0.5% and 1% NPS. Acrylic preparation was preformed according to manufacturer’s instruction and the doughy acrylic resins were inserted into the impression mold and pressed using glass slide until the completion of self curing at 26°C. Cured polymeric samples were removed from molds after 1 hour and grinded to 64×10.0×3.3 mm using 60 and 80 grit sandpapers to meet the ISO 20795-2 (2013) standard of the polymeric base of orthodontic appliance.^[33] Each sample was meausured three times using a digital caliper (Insize, USA) with a precision of 0.1 mm. Each sample was allocated a number from 1 to 90 (Fig. 2).

42291B24-9EA8-554B-BEF9-F6116A260A22

Figure 2.

Control samples of Triplex acrylic resin on the left, and Triplex acrylic resin incorporated with 0.5% NPS on the right.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/929348 Flexural strength test

Samples were immersed in water and incubated at 37°C for 50±2 hours (Incubator, PECO-Iran). Then flexural strength test was carried out using a universal testing machine (Zwick Z250, Germany). Specimens were undertaken an increasing load at a crosshead speed of 5±1 mm/min to the failure point. Flexural strength was calculated according to the following equation:

σ=3Fl/2bh ²

where F delegates the force in Newton at failure point, l stands for the distance between supports in millimeters with an accuracy of ±0.01 mm, b and h are the width and height in millimeters, respectively, at the center of the sample.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS version 25 using one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and T-test. P less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Triplex and Acropars incorporated with 0, 0.5%, and 1% NPS were prepared for flexural strength test. The experiment was conducted on 90 samples of six groups. Results of the flexural strength showed a descending trend in flexural strength with increasing the concentration of NPS (Fig. 3). So that the mean flexural strength of Acropars incorporated with 1% of NPS dropped to 18.60±14.81 MPa and that of Triplex came to 51/33±16/47 MPa.

The highest mean value was recorded in acrylic resins without NPS in both Acropars and Triplex groups (Table 1). The two way ANOVA test indicated a different effect of NPS percentage on flexural strength according to the type of resin, denoting a significant interaction between acrylic resin type and NPS percent.

6D3443E5-F345-5538-8987-C3C63797F101

Figure 3.

Mean flexural strength (MPa) of two acrylic resins incorporated with 0, 0.5, and 1% of NPS.

https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/929349

The mean flexural strength of control group of Acropars (58/58±8/87 MPa) and Triplex (62/43±10/61 MPa) showed no significant difference (p=0.29, 95% CI). On the other hand, the mean flexural strength of Triplex+0.5% NPS (58/25±26/49 MPa) was significantly higher than that of Acropars with the same percentage of NPS (24/91±11/22 MPa) (p<0.001, 95% CI). Likewise, the mean flexural strength of Triplex+1% NPS (51/33±16/47 MPa) was higher than Acropars+1% NPS (18/60±14/81 MPa) significantly (p<0.0001, 95% CI). Incorporation of both 0.5 and 1% NPS had no adverse effect on the flexural strength of Triplex although decreased that of Acropars. Among Acropars samples, the mean flexural strength was significantly different between the subgroups using one-way ANOVA test (p<0.0001). Acropars without NPS represented significantly higher mean flexural strength than either 0.5% or 1% NPS incorporated samples (p<0.0001, 95% CI) in pairwise comparisons using Tukey HSD test. There was no significant difference between the flexural strength of 0.5% and 1% nanoprolis incorporated Acropars (p=0.323, 95% CI). Among Triplex samples, mean flexural strength showed no significant difference between the subgroups (p=0.283, 95% CI).

Table 1.

Mean flexural strength of Acropars and Triplex incorporated with 0, 0.5, and 1% of NPS.

Acrylic resin group	NPS%	Number	Flexural strength value MPa
Acrylic resin group	NPS%	Number	Mean	SD
Acropars	0	15	58/58	8/87
	0.5	15	24/91	11/22
	1	15	18/60	14/81
Triplex	0	15	62/42	10/61
	0.5	15	58/25	26/49
	1	15	51/33	16/47

Table 2.

Comparison between the mean flexural strength of Acropars and Triplex incorporated with 0%, 0.5%, and 1% of NPS.

	P value
	Acropars 0%	Acropars 0.5%	Acropars 1%	Triplex 0%	Triplex 0.5%	Triplex 1%
Acropars, 0%	-	<0.001*	<0.001*	0.291	-	-
Acropars, 0.5%	<0.001*	-	0.323	-	<0.01*	-
Acropars, 1%	<0.001*	0.323	-	-	-	<0.001*

* significant difference according to P

Discussion

Several attempts have been made to incorporate antimicrobial agents into PMMA to address the microbial colonization.^[17] In this regard, NPS might serve as a promising alternative to metal antimicrobial agents due to its remarkable antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal effectiveness along with biological safety and natural source.^[34] Indisputably, PMMA incorporated with NPS should also meet the recommended flexural strength for clinical practice as well. Nanoparticles may act as small-sized fillers and therefore enhance or reduce mechanical properties.^[35–37] Various nanoparticles have been introduced to PMMA in several previous investigations. Nanodiamonds at a concentration of 0.5% improved flexural strength of PMMA due to the crystalline structure of diamond, intense chemical bonds, and suitable diffusion of nanoparticles in the resin matrix. However, higher concentration of nanoparticle resulted in lower flexural strength due to the inadequate ratio of polymer.^[38] Addition of zinc oxide nanoparticles up to 1.4% increased the flexural strength of PMMA.^[39] Incorporation of 2.5% and 5% zirconium oxide nanoparticles boosted flexural strength of PMMA regardless of resin thickness.^[40] Silicon dioxide nanoparticles revealed a dose-dependent reducing effect on flexural strength, higher concentration leading to lower value due to the presence of voids and agglomeration of nanoparticles.^[41]

Since the antibacterial activity of NPS modified-PMMA against S. mutans, S. sanguinis, L. acidophilus, and C. albicans has been proven by the authors lately^[32], this study was designed to evaluate the effect of NPS incorporation on flexural strength of two acrylic resins namely Triplex and Acropars. In control groups, the mean flexural strength of Triplex was slightly higher than that of Acropars although the difference was insignificant and both were more than 50 MPa which is the minimum flexural strength base on ISO 20795-2:2013.^[33] Current results indicated that the mean flexural strengths of Triplex+0.5% and 1% NPS were lower than that of control Triplex although the differences were insignificant (p=0.821 and p=0.258, respectively) and remained above the recommended value.^[33] On the other hand, incorporation of both 0.5% and 1% NPS resulted in significant reduction of the mean flexural strength of Acropars (p<0.0001) to less than the accepted value. This may be explained by the interference of nanoparticles as impurities with resin polymerization. Moreover, nanoparticles may act as plasticizers and result in higher amount of unreacted monomers.

The differences between various acrylic resins have been considered in previous studies.^[42] Triplex and Acropars self-curing acrylic resins opted in this study are different in terms of composition and concentration of oligomers, plasticizers, crosslinkers, initiators, and accelerators which may have to diverse effect of NPS on flexural strength of each. The present results for Acropars groups containing NPS are consistent with the previous reports with some other particles. Incorporation of higher percentage of Al₂O₃, TiO₂, and SiO₂ (3-5%)^[43], 10% ratio of TiO₂, ZrO₂, Sic-nano, Si₃N₄ and HA-nano^[44], 0.5 and 1% of either TiO₂ or SiO₂^[45] decreased flexural strength of PMMA significantly. Kul et al. revealed no significant differences in flexural strength of PMMA (Heraus Kulzer) following the addition of SiC, Al₂O₃ or Ag by 10 wt%^[44] which is in line with the current values achieved in 0.5 and 1% NPS enriched-Triplex. Nevertheless, there are controversies on how the incorporation of various antibacterial agents would affect the flexural strength of PMMA. For instance, in the study conducted by Yadav et al., incorporation of 10% mass of silver zinc zeolite, chlorhexidine (CHX), and fluconazole decreased the flexural strength of PMMA (Trevalon) significantly which was in accordance with our results in the Acropars groups. Their observations may be due to an increase in residual monomer in the zeolite porosities or disruption of the physical structure of the polymer by either CHX or large particles of fluconazole. It might also be attributed to the high percentage of the nanoparticles they used.^[46] Contrariwise, in the research by Ratanajanchai et al., addition of 1.0% w/w of potassium sorbate, 0.5% w/w of sodium metabisulfite and 0.25% w/w of zinc oxide particles as antimicrobial agents increased the flexural strength and decreased the flexural modulus of PMMA but within the acceptable range.^[47] Similarly, in a study by Lee et al., incorporation of 0.5%, 1%, and 2% graphene-oxide nanosheets into PMMA introduced antimicrobial activity without any adverse effect on flexural strength. Besides, addition of 0.5% graphene-oxide improved flexural strength which may be due to the ability of graphene-oxide to deflect cracks.^[48] Incorporation of 0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.6% of Galla Chinese extract into Acropars conferred antibacterial property along with improvement in the flexural strength of PMMA which the latter attributed to the covalent bonds creation between Galla extract and Acropars.^[49] To our knowledge, despite promising addition of propolis to other substrates such as glass ionomer or resin composite, there is lack of evidence on mechanical properties of PMMA incorporated with NPS. Regarding the addition of propolis to other substrates, incorporation of 25% and 50% ethanolic extracts of propolis into glass ionomer inhibited S. mutans with no adverse effect on shear bond strength.^[50] Similarly, 2% and 5% NPS incorporated into composite resin exhibited antibacterial effect against S. mutans and S. sanguinis beside acceptable shear bond strength.^[51] Several factors including but not limited to nanoparticle’s type, formulation, structure, and concentration along with the rate of dispersion in resin matrix and probability of interfering with the polymerization might affect the results. In addition, the properties of the matrix, which the nanoparticles introduced to such as formulation or mode of polymerization are other key factors in achieved data. Thus, further studies considering the aforementioned variables along with subsequent evaluation of antimicrobial efficiency, cytotoxic effect of nanoparticles, roughness of fractured surface and other major mechanical properties such as modulus of elasticity are recommended. In vitro experiments considering the effect of time, aging and so on to simulate clinical conditions are required. Ultimately, clinical investigations are essential to generalize the results to the practice.

Conclusions

The effect of NPS on flexural strength of acrylic resin is dependent on the commercial type and concentration of the nanoparticle. Addition of 0.5% and 1% propolis nanoparticles to Triplex does not have any adverse effect on its flexural strength. However, it drops that of Acropars below the acceptable value.

Acknowledgements

The authors have no support to report.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

1. Salim NA, Al-Abdullah MM, AlHamdan AS, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and assessment of orthodontic treatment needs among Syrian refugee children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2021; 21:305.

2. Prabhakar RR, Saravanan R, Karthikeyan MK, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and need for early orthodontic treatment in children. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8:ZC60-ZC1.

3. Das UM, Venkatsubramanian, Reddy D. Prevalence of malocclusion among school children in bangalore, India. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008; 1:10–2.

4. Burhan AS, Nawaya FR. Preventive and interceptive orthodontic needs among Syrian children. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2016; 91:90–4.

5. Andriekute A, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A. A survey of protocols and trends in orthodontic retention. Prog Orthod 2017; 18(1):1–8.

6. Hassan M, Asghar M, Din SU, et al. Chapter 8 – Thermoset polymethacrylate-based materials for dental applications. In: Grumezescu V, Grumezescu AM, eds. Materials for Biomedical Engineering: Elsevier; 2019:273–308.

7. Daniluk T, Tokajuk G, Stokowska W, et al. Occurrence rate of oral Candida albicans in denture wearer patients. Adv Med Sci 2006; 51 Suppl 1:77–80.

8. Olms C, Yahiaoui-Doktor M, Remmerbach TW, et al. Bacterial colonization and tissue compatibility of denture base resins. Dent J (Basel) 2018; 6(2):20.

9. Takeuchi Y, Nakajo K, Sato T, et al. Quantification and identification of bacteria in acrylic resin dentures and dento-maxillary obturator-prostheses. Am J Dent 2012; 25:171–5.

10. Ghorbanzadeh R, Pourakbari B, Bahador A. Effects of baseplates of orthodontic appliances with in situ generated silver nanoparticles on cariogenic bacteria: a randomized, double-blind cross-over clinical trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16:291–8.

11. Sodagar A, Khalil S, Kassaee MZ, et al. Antimicrobial properties of poly (methyl methacrylate) acrylic resins incorporated with silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles on cariogenic bacteria. J Orthod Sci 2016; 5:7–13.

12. Kim K-I, Kim D-A, Patel KD, et al. Carbon nanotube incorporation in PMMA to prevent microbial adhesion. Sci Rep 2019; 9:4921.

13. Maluf CV, Peroni LV. Evaluation of the physical and antifungal effects of chlorhexidine diacetate incorporated into polymethyl methacrylate. J Appl Oral Sci 2020; 28:e20190039.

14. Cao L, Xie X, Wang B, et al. Protein-repellent and antibacterial effects of a novel polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Dent 2018; 79:39–45.

15. Carvalho LD, Peres BU, Maezono H, et al. Doxycycline release and antibacterial activity from PMMA/PEO electrospun fiber mats. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27:e20180663.

16. Mangal U, Min YJ, Seo JY, et al. Changes in tribological and antibacterial properties of poly(methyl methacrylate)-based 3D-printed intra-oral appliances by incorporating nanodiamonds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 110:103992.

17. An S, Evans JL, Hamlet S, et al. Incorporation of antimicrobial agents in denture base resin: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126:188–95.

18. Khurshid Z, Naseem M, Zafar MS, et al. Propolis: a natural biomaterial for dental and oral healthcare. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2017; 11:265–74.

19. Zulhendri F, Felitti R, Fearnley J, et al. The use of propolis in dentistry, oral health, and medicine: A review. J Oral Biosci 2021; 63:23–34.

20. Stavropoulou MI, Stathopoulou K, Cheilari A, et al. NMR metabolic profiling of Greek propolis samples: Comparative evaluation of their phytochemical compositions and investigation of their anti-ageing and antioxidant properties. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2021; 194:113814.

21. Forma E, Bryś M. Anticancer activity of propolis and its compounds. Nutrients 2021; 13(8):2594.

22. Sforcin JM. Propolis and the immune system: a review. J Ethnopharmacol 2007; 113:1–14.

23. El Adaouia Taleb R, Djebli N, Chenini H, et al. In vivo and in vitro anti‐diabetic activity of ethanolic propolis extract. J Food Biochem 2020; 44(7):e13267.

24. Piñeros AR, de Lima MHF, Rodrigues T, et al. Green propolis increases myeloid suppressor cells and CD4(+)Foxp3(+) cells and reduces Th2 inflammation in the lungs after allergen exposure. J Ethnopharmacol 2020; 252:112496.

25. Eskandarinia A, Kefayat A, Gharakhloo M, et al. A propolis enriched polyurethane-hyaluronic acid nanofibrous wound dressing with remarkable antibacterial and wound healing activities. Int J Biol Macromol 2020; 149:467–76.

26. Almuhayawi MS. Propolis as a novel antibacterial agent. Saudi J Biol Sci 2020; 27:3079–86.

27. Magnavacca A, Sangiovanni E, Racagni G, et al. The antiviral and immunomodulatory activities of propolis: An update and future perspectives for respiratory diseases. Med Res Rev 2022; 42(2):897–945.

28. Ibrahim MEE, Alqurashi RM. Anti-fungal and antioxidant properties of propolis (bee glue) extracts. Int J Food Microbiol 2022; 361:109463.

29. Abbasi AJ, Mohammadi F, Bayat M, et al. Applications of propolis in dentistry: a review. Ethiop J Health Sci 2018; 28:505–12.

30. Lisbona-González MJ, Muñoz-Soto E, Lisbona-González C, et al. Effect of propolis paste and mouthwash formulation on healing after teeth extraction in periodontal disease. Plants 2021; 10(8):1603.

31. Parolia A, Kumar H, Ramamurthy S. Effect of propolis nanoparticles against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in the root canal. Molecules 2021; 26(3):715.

32. Sepideh A, Abbas B, Ahmad S, et al. Antimicrobial properties of acrylic resin incorporated with propolis nanoparticles. Front Dent 2021; 18.

33. ISO 20795-2: 2013. Dentistry, Base polymers, Part 2: Orthodontic base polymers.

34. Siheri W, Alenezi S, Tusiimire J, et al. The chemical and biological properties of propolis. In: Alvarez-Suarez JM, editor. Bee Products – Chemical and Biological Properties. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 137–78.

35. Gad MM, Fouda SM, Al-Harbi FA, et al. PMMA denture base material enhancement: a review of fiber, filler, and nanofiller addition. Int J Nanomedicine 2017; 12:3801–12.

36. Cevik P, Yildirim-Bicer AZ. The effect of silica and prepolymer nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of denture base acrylic resin. J Prosthodont 2018; 27:763–70.

37. Ladha K, Shah D. An in-vitro evaluation of the flexural strength of heat-polymerized poly (methyl methacrylate) denture resin reinforced with fibers. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011; 11:215–20.

38. Al-Harbi FA, Abdel-Halim MS, Gad MM. Effect of nanodiamond addition on flexural strength, impact strength, and surface roughness of PMMA denture base. J Prosthodont 2019; 28:e417–e25.

39. Vikram S, Chander NG. Effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles on the flexural strength of polymethylmethacrylate denture base resin. Eur Oral Res 2020; 54:31–5.

40. Albasarah S, Al Abdulghani H. Impact of ZrO(2) nanoparticles addition on flexural properties of denture base resin with different thickness. J Adv Prosthodont 2021; 13:226–36.

41. Alzayyat ST, Almutiri GA, Aljandan JK, et al. Effects of SiO₂ incorporation on the flexural properties of a denture base resin: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2022; 16:188–94.

42. Savabi O, Attar K, Nejatidanesh F, et al. Effect of different chemical disinfectants on the flexural strength of heat-polymerized acrylic resins. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2013; 21:105–8.

43. Karci M, Demir N, Yazman S. Evaluation of flexural strength of different denture base materials reinforced with different nanoparticles. J Prosthodont 2019; 28:572–9.

44. Kul E, Aladağ L, Yesildal R. Evaluation of thermal conductivity and flexural strength properties of poly(methyl methacrylate) denture base material reinforced with different fillers. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116:803–10.

45. Sodagar A, Bahador A, Khalil S, et al. The effect of TiO₂ and SiO₂ nanoparticles on flexural strength of poly (methyl methacrylate) acrylic resins. J Prosthodont Res 2013; 57:15–9.

46. Yadav NS, Saraf S, Mishra SK, et al. Effects of fluconazole, chlorhexidine gluconate, and silver-zinc zeolite on flexural strength of heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate resin. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2015; 6:340–2.

47. Ratanajanchai M, Kanchanavasita W, Suputtamongkol K, et al. Heat-cured poly(methyl methacrylate) resin incorporated with different food preservatives as an anti-microbial denture base material. J Dent Sci 2021; 16:706–12.

48. Lee J-H, Jo J-K, Kim D-A, et al. Nano-graphene oxide incorporated into PMMA resin to prevent microbial adhesion. Dent Mater J 2018; 34:e63–e72.

49. Ajami S, Habibagahi R. Evaluation of flexural strength and antibacterial effect of orthodontic acrylic resins containing Galla chinensis extract. Dental Press J Orthod 2020; 25:43–8.

50. Hatunoğlu E, Oztürk F, Bilenler T, et al. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of propolis added to glass ionomer cement. Angle Orthod 2014; 84:368–73.

51. Sodagar A, Akhavan A, Arab S, et al. Evaluation of the effect of propolis nanoparticles on antimicrobial properties and shear bond strength of orthodontic composite bonded to bovine enamel. Front Dent 2019; 16:96–104.