Cytocompatibility of 3D printed dental materials for temporary restorations on fibroblasts

Abstract

Background: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is widely used in the fabrication of dental prostheses; however, the influence of dental materials used for 3D printing on temporary restoration of fibroblasts in tissues is unclear. Thus, the influence of different dental materials on fibroblasts were investigated. Methods: Digital light processing (DLP) type 3D printing was used. Specimens in the control group were fabricated by mixing liquid and powder self-curing resin restoration materials. The temporary resin materials used were Model, Castable, Clear-SG, Tray, and Temporary, and the self-curing resin materials used were Lang dental, Alike, Milky blue, TOKVSO CUREFAST, and UniFast III. Fibroblast cells were cultured on each specimen and subsequently post-treated for analysis. Morphology of the adhered cells were observed using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: CLSM and SEM cell imaging revealed that the 3D printed material group presented better cell adhesion with well-distributed filopodia compared to that in the conventional resin material group. Cell proliferation was significantly higher in the 3D printing materials. Conclusion: Superior cytocompatibility of the specimens fabricated through 3D printing and polishing process was demonstrated with the proof of better cell adhesion and higher cell proliferation.

Effects of Postcuring Temperature on the Mechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of Three-Dimensional Printed Dental Resin Material

“…As mentioned above, the DC did not differ significantly between the 60 and 80 • C groups despite the cytotoxicity being lower in the latter group, and significant differences in cytotoxicity were found between all postcuring temperatures. Park et al investigated the influence of different dental resin materials on fibroblasts, and found that 3D printed resin specimens showed better biocompatibility than self-cured resin specimens [43]. The production of 3D printed resin does not involve a chemical reaction, and so there is likely to be less cytotoxicity, whereas self-curing technology does involve chemical reactions [43].…”

“…Park et al investigated the influence of different dental resin materials on fibroblasts, and found that 3D printed resin specimens showed better biocompatibility than self-cured resin specimens [43]. The production of 3D printed resin does not involve a chemical reaction, and so there is likely to be less cytotoxicity, whereas self-curing technology does involve chemical reactions [43].…”

Biochemical Interaction between Materials Used for Interim Prosthetic Restorations and Saliva

“…Dental literature includes relevant studies regarding the biocompatibility of the materials used for manufacturing interim prosthetic restorations, with a general focus on the interaction between these materials and oral cells (fibroblasts, epithelial cells, or dental pulp cells); the monomer release; or biofilm formation [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Few studies are dedicated to the influence exercised by interim prosthetic materials on the salivary redox status or inflammatory salivary status.…”

“…Souza et al (2020) [ 38 ] also demonstrated that the CAD/CAM acrylic resin was the most compatible with the oral epithelial cells in comparison with the conventional acrylic and bis-acrylic resins. Park et al (2020) [ 39 ] recommended the resins obtained by additive manufacturing for fabricating interim prosthetic restorations over using the auto-polymerized acrylic resins, based on the comparative evaluation of their cytotoxicity (cellular attachment and cell proliferation of mice gingival fibroblasts). Campaner et al (2020) [ 40 ] concluded that the CAD/CAM obtained resins could be considered the most suitable materials for fabricating interim restorations; in this study, the tested auto-polymerized acrylic resin (Alike, Reliance Dental Mfg Co., Worth, IL, USA) and bis-acrylic resin (VIPI Cor, VIPI Industries, Toledo, Spain) induced the greatest adverse effects on mice gingival fibroblasts while the CAD/CAM nano ceramic resin (LAVA Ultimate 3 M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul’s, MN, USA) and the prefabricated polymer block (Telio CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were the most cytocompatible materials and induced the lowest production of IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α.…”

Dimensional Accuracy Evaluation of Temporary Dental Restorations with Different 3D Printing Systems

“…Although producing precise temporary restorative materials through 3D printing is critical, there have been a lack of studies regarding its accuracy. Few studies have been performed on 3D-printed temporary restorations, including the cytocompatibility of 3D-printed temporary restorations [ 8 ] and fabrication of highly viscous temporary crowns with fast building speed [ 9 ]. In addition, comparisons on the products of DLP and LCD-type printers have hardly been made.…”