Mechanical properties of 3D‐printed resin denture teeth: An in vitro study

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the wear, fracture strength, and mode of failure of various brands of 3D‐printed resin denture teeth with prefabricated acrylic resin. Additionally, the study aimed to analyze the different modes of failure exhibited by these teeth.Materials and MethodsThe study utilized 90 3D‐printed and 30 prefabricated, 3D‐printed resin teeth from three brands: L = Optiprint Lumina, A = ASIGA DentaTooth, P = Power resins, along with prefabricated acrylic teeth from M = Major Super Lux. Each of the 30 samples per main group was divided into two subgroups: The first subgroup samples (M1, A1, L1, P1) were subjected to thermal cycling and mechanical loading; M2, A2, L2, and P2 were not aged and tested directly. A scan of a prefabricated acrylic tooth was taken using an intraoral scanner, and then the STL file was printed using an Asiga 3Dprinter. The specimens underwent aging to simulate 5 years of clinical use with 10,000 thermal cycles and 1,200,000 dynamic load cycles on a chewing simulator. Surface roughness parameters (Rz, Ra, Rq) were measured using a 3D Optical Profilometer, fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine, and SEM analysis was performed to observe failure modes. Statistical analysis using T‐test, one‐way analysis, and two‐way analysis processed by the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 (SPSS: Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was done with a level of significance set at <0.05.ResultsThe results showed that the difference in surface roughness parameters (Rz, Ra, Rq) before and after aging for Group M, Group A, Group L, and Group P was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Two‐way ANOVA for wear resistance between aging and groups on dependent variable Rz (p = 0.002), Ra (p = 0.001), Rq (p = 0.001) were significant. Multiple comparisons for surface roughness parameters showed Group A and Group L were lower than Group P and Group M (p < 0.05). For fracture strength, One‐way ANOVA showed a significant difference between groups for fracture strength either without or after the aging procedure (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons for fracture strength without aging showed no significant difference between Group M, Group A, and Group L (p > 0.05). After the aging procedure fracture strength for Group M was higher than Group A, Group L, and Group P (p < 0.05).Conclusion3D‐printed resin teeth showed a greater and comparable wear resistance to prefabricated acrylic teeth. Fracture strength was comparable between prefabricated acrylic teeth and 3D‐printed resin (Asiga and Lumina) before aging, but after aging 3D‐printed resin teeth showed less fracture strength.