A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D-printing), subtractive (milling), and conventional techniques.

Materials and methods: Three material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D-printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD-Temp, (milled/ML), and (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self-cured/CC). Each group consisted of 20 beam-shaped specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) used for a three-point flexural strength test and 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: 2 mm) used for surface roughness, gloss, degree of conversion, and hardness measurements. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05).

Results: The ranking of the statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), ML >CC > 3DP (gloss) and ML > 3DP> CC (gloss, degree of conversion, hardness and flexural strength).

Clinical significance: The tested materials showed statistically significant differences in all tested properties. These differences may affect their clinical performance and should be taken into consideration for their clinical application.