The effect of surface treatments on the color stability of CAD-CAM interim fixed dental prostheses

Abstract

Statement of problemAdditive manufacturing or 3D printing is gaining popularity in dentistry, including for interim fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs). However, evidence regarding the color stability of 3D-printed IFDPs is lacking. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate whether different surface treatments could affect the color stability of milled and 3D-printed IFDPs after simulated physiological aging. Material and methodsForty milled IFDPs were fabricated with a 5-axis dental mill (DWX-51D; Roland DGA Corp) from polymethyl methacrylate disks (Temp Esthetic 98, A3.5, 98.5×16 mm; Harvest Dental Products, LLC). Forty 3D-printed IFDPs were fabricated with an in-office digital light processing 3D printer (MAX; Asiga) and light-polymerizing resin (NextDent Crown & Bridge A3.5; NextDent B.V). All milled and 3D-printed IFDPs were allocated into 4 different groups (n=10), according to different surface treatments: Control, Polish, Optiglaze, and Skinglaze. In the Control group, no surface treatment was applied to the IFDPs. For the Polish group, IFDPs were finished and polished with aluminum oxide finishers/polishers (Enhance PoGo Complete Kit; Dentsply Sirona). For the Optiglaze and Skinglaze groups, specimens were first finished and polished and prepared with additional light-polymerizing protective coatings (Optiglaze; GC America Inc, or New Outline Skin Glaze; anaxdent North America). Shade measurements were recorded with a digital spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade V; VITA North America) before and after the thermocycling for the color stability comparisons. The effects of interim prosthesis type and surface treatments on ΔE∗, ΔL∗, Δa∗, and Δb∗ were examined using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and ΔE∗ was considered as the primary outcome variable. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed by using the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) method (α=.05 for all tests). ResultsMilled IFDPs had significantly smaller ΔE∗ than 3D-printed prostheses for the Control group only (P<.001). Within the milled IFDPs, Optiglaze group (mean ±standard deviation, 1.01 ±0.38) had significantly lower ΔE∗ than all the other surface treatments groups (Control group: 2.38 ±0.44, P<.001; Polish group: 1.83 ±0.51, P=.025; and Skinglaze group: 1.85 ±0.78, P=.021). Within the 3D-printed IFDPs, the Control group (3.83 ±0.71) had significantly larger ΔE∗ than all other surface treatments (Polish group: 2.66 ±0.89, P=.018; Skinglaze group: 1.40 ±0.73, P<.001; and Optiglaze group: 1.37 ±0.67, P<.001). The Polish group had significantly higher ΔE∗ than Skinglaze group (P=.009) and Optiglaze group (P=.007), while Skinglaze and Optiglaze groups were not significantly different from each other (P=1.000). ConclusionsFor the milled IFDPs, only the nano-filled, light-polymerizing protective coating significantly lowered color changes after thermocycling simulating 6 months of intraoral physiological aging. For the 3D-printed IFDPs, surface polishing and both light-polymerizing protective coating agents all significantly reduced color changes of the prostheses after thermocycling. The protective effect of light-polymerizing coating agents was more substantial.