A Comparison of the Surface and Mechanical Properties of 3D Printable Denture‐Base Resin Material and Conventional Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)

Abstract

Purpose To study the surface and mechanical properties of 3D printed denture‐base resin materials and compare them with conventional heat‐cured polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). Materials and methods Three brands of 3D printed denture‐base resin materials and one conventional heat‐cured PMMA were tested in this study: NextDent 3D printed resin, Dentona 3D printed resin, ASIGA 3D printed resin, and Meliodent conventional PMMA. Sixty specimens (25 × 25 × 3 mm) were fabricated (n=15 per group) to perform the following tests: wettability, surface roughness, and microhardness. One hundred twenty specimens (65 × 10 × 3 mm) were fabricated (n=30 per group) and stored in distilled water at (37 ±1°C) for 7 days. Specimens (N = 15) in each group were subjected to the three‐point bending test and impact strength test, employing the Charpy configuration on un‐notched specimens. The morphology of the fractured specimens was studied under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Statistical analysis was performed using one‐way ANOVA and Tukey‐pairwise multiple comparisons with 95% confidence interval. P‐values of ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results The conventional heat‐cured specimens demonstrated the highest means of surface roughness (0.23 ± 0.07 μm), Vickers hardness number (18.11 ±0.65) and flexural strength (92.44 ±7.91 MPa), and the lowest mean of contact angle (66.71° ±3.38°). ASIGA group showed the highest mean of contact angle (73.44° ±2.74°) and the lowest mean of surface roughness (0.19 ±0.03 μm). The highest mean of impact strength was recorded in the Dentona group (17.98 ±1.76 kg/m2). NextDent specimens showed the lowest means of Vickers hardness number (16.20 ±0.93), flexural strength (74.89 ±8.44 MPa), impact strength (15.20 ±0.69 kg/m2), and recorded the highest mean of bending modulus (2,115.80 ±178.95 MPa). Conclusions 3D printed resin exhibited noticeable differences in surface and mechanical properties between different brands and with conventional heat‐polymerized PMMA.

3D-Printed Nanocomposite Denture-Base Resins: Effect of ZrO2 Nanoparticles on the Mechanical and Surface Properties In Vitro

“…In this study, 3D-printed resins showed lower hardness values compared with heat-polymerized PMMA. The surface hardness could be adversely affected by the level of residual monomers, since their contents may have an impact on hardness [ 67 ]. In addition, water absorbed during thermal cycling acts as a plasticizer and decreases the mechanical performance of 3D-printed resins [ 34 ].…”

“…In this study, 3D-printed resins showed lower hardness values compared with heat-polymerized PMMA. The surface hardness could be adversely affected by the level of residual monomers, since their contents may have an impact on hardness [67].…”

Mechanical Properties of Polymethyl Methacrylate as Denture Base Material: Heat-Polymerized vs. 3D-Printed—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

“…Seven studies evaluated this mechanical property, and after comparing the values obtained between the heat-cured resin group (control group) and the 3D printing resin group (study group), it was found that there was greater flexural strength in the case of the control group. Indeed, Al Dwairi et al 2022 [ 20 ] and Prpic’ et al 2022 [ 21 ] justify these results through the internal structure of the materials: the resin of the study group has a lower conversion of monomer into polymer, which can affect the mechanical properties of the material. Furthermore, Perea-Lowery et al 2021[ 22 ] also mention the weak bond between successive layers in 3D printing resins as a justification.…”

Mechanical Properties Evaluation of Three Different Materials for Implant Supported Overdenture: An In-Vitro Study

“…The load-deflection curves were recorded using analysis software (Nexygen 4.0; Lloyd Instruments). FS and EM were automatically calculated by the machine software using Formulas (1) and (2) [ 30 ]: FS (MPa) = 3FL/2bh 2 EM (MPa) = F 1 L 3 /4bh 3 d where F is the maximum load (N), L is the span length (mm), b is the specimen width (mm), h is the specimen thickness (mm), F 1 is the load (N) at a point on in the straight-line segment of the load-deflection curve, and d is the recorded deflection (mm) at load F 1 .…”

“…The majority of fractures were noticed in the thinner denture base area surrounding the abutment [ 26 , 27 ]. While the flexural strength of 3D-printed denture base materials has been reported [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], information concerning the flexural strength of 3D-printed implant-supported overdentures is, to the authors’ knowledge, not available in the literature.…”