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

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

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 teste...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 40 - 48
Main Authors: Al‐Dwairi, Ziad N., Al Haj Ebrahim, Abdulkareem A., Baba, Nadim Z.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-01-2023
Subjects:
3D printed resin
CAD‐CAM
Complete denture
Contact angle
Denture Bases
Dentures
digital denture
Flexural Strength
Heat
Impact strength
Materials Testing
Mechanical properties
PMMA
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Polymethylmethacrylate
Scanning electron microscopy
Statistical analysis
Surface Properties
CAD-CAM
digital denture
polymethylmethacrylate
PMMA
Complete denture
3D printed resin
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:Conflict of interest statement
Authors declare no conflicts of interest.
:
Funding
Support for this research from the Jordan University of Science and Technology (Grant # 20200473).
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1059-941X
1532-849X
DOI:10.1111/jopr.13491