Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(01): 321-328
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768972
Original Article

Evaluation of the Influence of Build Orientation on the Surface Roughness and Flexural Strength of 3D-Printed Denture Base Resin and Its Comparison with CAD-CAM Milled Denture Base Resin

Naji Ahmad Alharethi
1   Department of Prosthodontic Sciences, College of Dentistry in Ar Rass, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the surface roughness and flexural strength of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed denture base resin printed with two different build plate orientations and to compare them with a computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) milled denture base resin.

Materials and Methods Sixty-six specimens (n = 22/group) were prepared by 3D printing and CAD-CAM technology. The group A and B specimens were 3D-printed bar-shaped denture base specimens printed at 120-degree and 135-degree build orientation, respectively, whereas group C specimens were milled using a CAD-CAM technology. The surface roughness was assessed using a noncontact profilometer with a 0.01 mm resolution and the flexural strength was determined using a three-point bend test. The maximum load in Newtons (N) at fracture, the flexural stress (MPa), and strain (mm/mm) was also measured.

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed by a statistical software package. One-way analysis of variance test was applied to determine whether significant differences existed among the study groups, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test to determine which resin group significantly differed from the others in terms of flexural strength and surface roughness (p ≤ 0.05).

Results The flexural stress (MPa) of group C was 200% of group A and 166% of group B. The flexural modulus was 192% of group A and 161% of group B. In contrast, group A had the lowest mean value among the three groups for all the parameters. No significant difference was seen between group A and group B. The mean roughness values of the CAD-CAM denture base resin specimens (group C) were the least (127356 nm) among all the three groups. The mean surface roughness of the 3D-printed denture base specimens (group A) was 1,34,234 nm and that of group B was (1,45,931 nm); however, it was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05)

Conclusions The CAD-CAM resin displayed superior surface and mechanical properties compared to the 3D-printed resin. The two different build plate angles did not have any significant effect on the surface roughness of the 3D-printed denture base resin.

Keywords

3D printing - CAD-CAM - flexural strength - surface roughness


Publication History

Article published online:
09 June 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 de Oliveira Limírio JPJ, Gomes JML, Alves Rezende MCR, Lemos CAA, Rosa CDDRD, Pellizzer EP. Mechanical properties of polymethyl methacrylate as a denture base: conventional versus CAD-CAM resin - a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (06) 1221-1229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lee D-H, Lee J-SJ. Comparison of flexural strength according to thickness between CAD/CAM denture base resins and conventional denture base resins. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2020; 36 (03) 183-195
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Al-Dwairi ZN, Al Haj Ebrahim AA, Baba NZ. A comparison of the surface and mechanical properties of 3D printable denture-base resin material and conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J Prosthodont 2023; 32 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anadioti E, Musharbash L, Blatz MB, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P. 3D printed complete removable dental prostheses: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2020; 20 (01) 343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Abualsaud R, Gad MM. Flexural strength of CAD/CAM denture base materials: systematic review and meta-analysis of in-vitro studies. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2022; 12 (02) 160-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mochalski J, Fröhls C, Keilig L, Bourauel C, Dörsam I. Experimental and numerical investigations of fracture and fatigue behaviour of implant-supported bars with distal extension made of three different materials. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2020; 66 (03) 305-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chhabra M, Nanditha Kumar M, RaghavendraSwamy KN, Thippeswamy HM. Flexural strength and impact strength of heat-cured acrylic and 3D printed denture base resins- a comparative in vitro study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2022; 12 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Helal MA, Fadl-Alah A, Baraka YM, Gad MM, Emam AM. In-vitro comparative evaluation for the surface properties and impact strength of CAD/CAM milled, 3D printed, and polyamide denture base resins. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2022; 12 (01) 126-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Perea-Lowery L, Minja IK, Lassila L, Ramakrishnaiah R, Vallittu PK. Assessment of CAD-CAM polymers for digitally fabricated complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (01) 175-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Srinivasan M, Kalberer N, Kamnoedboon P. et al. CAD-CAM complete denture resins: an evaluation of biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and surface characteristics. J Dent 2021; 114: 103785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Al-Qarni FD, Gad MMJ. Printing accuracy and flexural properties of different 3D-printed denture base resins. Materials (Basel) 2022; 15 (07) 2410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Perea-Lowery L, Gibreel M, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. 3D-printed vs. heat-polymerizing and autopolymerizing denture base acrylic resins. Materials (Basel) 2021; 14 (19) 5781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Alshaikh AA, Khattar A, Almindil IA. et al. 3D-printed nanocomposite denture-base resins: effect of ZrO2 nanoparticles on the mechanical and surface properties in vitro. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2022; 12 (14) 2451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gad MM, Fouda SM, Abualsaud R. et al. Strength and surface properties of a 3D-printed denture base polymer. J Prosthodont 2022; 31 (05) 412-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alaseef N, Albasarah S, Al Abdulghani H. et al. CAD-CAM fabricated denture base resins: in vitro investigation of the minimum acceptable denture base thickness. J Prosthodont 2022; 31 (09) 799-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Quezada MM, Salgado H, Correia A, Fernandes C, Fonseca P. Investigation of the effect of the same polishing protocol on the surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins. Biomedicines 2022; 10 (08) 1971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alharbi N, Osman RB. Does build angle have an influence on surface roughness of anterior 3D-printed restorations? An in-vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2021; 34 (04) 505-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alharbi N, van de Veen AJ, Wismeijer D, Osman RB. Build angle and its influence on the flexure strength of stereolithography printed hybrid resin material. An in vitro study and a fractographic analysis. Mater Technol 2019; 34 (01) 12-17
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Alzaid M, AlToraibily F, Al-Qarni FD. et al. The effect of salivary pH on the flexural strength and surface properties of CAD/CAM denture base materials. Eur J Dent 2023; 17 (01) 234-241
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Malijevský A. Does surface roughness amplify wetting?. J Chem Phys 2014; 141 (18) 184703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Brenes C, Renne W, Tolbert T, Fantaski L. Effect of print angulation on surface roughness of 3D-printed models. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2020; 41 (10) e1-e4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry—state of the art. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (01) 30-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hussein MO, Hussein LA. Optimization of digital light processing three-dimensional printing of the removable partial denture frameworks; the role of build angle and support structure diameter. Materials (Basel) 2022; 15 (06) 2316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hwang H-J, Lee SJ, Park E-J, Yoon H-I. Assessment of the trueness and tissue surface adaptation of CAD-CAM maxillary denture bases manufactured using digital light processing. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (01) 110-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hussein MO, Hussein LA. Trueness of 3D printed partial denture frameworks: build orientations and support structure density parameters. J Adv Prosthodont 2022; 14 (03) 150-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 de Foggi CC, Machado AL, Zamperini CA, Fernandes D, Wady AF, Vergani CE. Effect of surface roughness on the hydrophobicity of a denture-base acrylic resin and Candida albicans colonization. J Investig Clin Dent 2016; 7 (02) 141-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Al-Dwairi ZN, Tahboub KY, Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ. A comparison of the flexural and impact strengths and flexural modulus of CAD/CAM and conventional heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (04) 341-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3d-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29 (05) 503-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jin M-C, Yoon H-I, Yeo I-S, Kim S-H, Han J-S. The effect of build angle on the tissue surface adaptation of maxillary and mandibular complete denture bases manufactured by digital light processing. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (03) 473-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar