Physical and surface properties of a 3D-printed composite resin for a digital workflow

Abstract

Statement of problemInformation related to the optical and surface properties, including health compatibility, surface roughness, and esthetics, of 3D-printed dental materials is scarce. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the physical and surface properties of a 3D-printed resin with those of materials used for interim restorations. Material and methodsA 3D-printed resin (PR) (NextDent C&B MFH; 3D Systems), an autopolymerizing interim material (BA) (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE), and a composite resin (Z350) (Filtek Z350XT; 3M ESPE) were tested for degree of color change (ΔE) (n=7) at different timepoints—24 hours after polishing/baseline (P0), 8 days after polishing (P1), and after artificial aging in water at 60 °C for 24 hours (P2)—by using a CIELab-based colorimeter; flexural strength (σ) (n=10) with a 3-point bend test; Knoop hardness (H) (n=8); and surface roughness (Ra) (n=7) with a profilometer. All specimens were polished 24 hours after polymerization, except for the additional group for surface roughness (BA) without polishing (BANP). A statistical analysis was performed by using 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by the Fischer test for ΔE and 1-way ANOVA followed by the Fisher test for microhardness and surface roughness (α=.05). ResultsThe Z350 showed the highest values for σ and H, followed by PR. BA showed the lowest results for both tests (P<.05). Considering roughness, the Z350 showed similar values to those of BA but lower than PR; PR showed similar roughness when compared with BA. PR showed the highest color variation among the groups at all timepoints, followed by BA. The Z350 was the most color stable material at all timepoints. ConclusionsThe 3D-printed composite resin had adequate mechanical and surface properties for an interim restorative material. It has the potential to be a low-cost workflow in dentistry, although its color stability could be a concern for long-term use.