Wear of 3D printed and CAD/CAM milled interim resin materials after chewing simulation

Abstract

PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the wear resistance and surface roughness of three interim resin materials, which were subjected to chewing simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three interim resin materials were evaluated: (1) three-dimensional (3D) printed (digital light processing type), (2) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled, and (3) conventional polymethyl methacrylate interim resin materials. A total of 48 substrate specimens were prepared. The specimens were divided into two subgroups and subjected to 30,000 or 60,000 cycles of chewing simulation (n = 8). The wear volume loss and surface roughness of the materials were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS The mean ± standard deviation values of wear volume loss (in mm 3 ) against the metal abrader after 60,000 cycles were 0.10 ± 0.01 for the 3D printed resin, 0.21 ± 0.02 for the milled resin, and 0.44 ± 0.01 for the conventional resin. Statistically significant differences among volume losses were found in the order of 3D printed, milled, and conventional interim materials ( P <.001). After 60,000 cycles of simulated chewing, the mean surface roughness (Ra; μm) values for 3D printed, milled, and conventional materials were 0.59 ± 0.06, 1.27 ± 0.49, and 1.64 ± 0.44, respectively. A significant difference was found in the Ra value between 3D printed and conventional materials ( P =.01). CONCLUSION The interim restorative materials for additive and subtractive manufacturing digital technologies exhibited less wear volume loss than the conventional interim resin. The 3D printed interim restorative material showed a smoother surface than the conventional interim material after simulated chewing.

Physical and Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Provisional Crowns and Fixed Dental Prosthesis Resins Compared to CAD/CAM Milled and Conventional Provisional Resins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first of its kind to analyze and document all the available studies comparing the mechanical and/or physical properties of the 3D-printed provisional crown and FPD materials with CAD/CAM milled and/or conventional provisional resins. All twentyfive papers included were in vitro studies [16,[26][27][28][29][30][31][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. The overall findings reveal that the mechanical and physical properties of the provisional crown and FDP materials are affected by the technique of fabrication and composition of the tested materials.…”

“…Comparing the wear resistance of MMA-based 3D-printed provisional resins: The wear resistance of MMA-based 3D-printed provisional resins was reported to be higher than the wear resistance of PMMA-based conventional and CAD/CAM milled 3D-printed interim resins [26,27,47,50].…”

“…than the wear resistance of PMMA-based conventional and CAD/CAM milled 3D-printed interim resins [26,27,47,50].…”

“…Myagmar et al [47] and Atrial et al [42] tested the color stability after artificial aging by thermocycling, whereas Shin et al [28], Song et al [44], and Taşın et al [48] immersed the test specimens in different staining solutions (coffee, grape juice, curry, black tea, cola, and red wine). In general, as the immersion duration increases, the extent of discoloration increases for the tested specimens.…”

“…They stated that due to the milling and polishing process, there could be additional surface defects that can increase the surface roughness. In general, it can be stated that the surface roughness of 3D-printed resins is affected by the composition of tested resin and printing orientation [47].…”