{"title":"Comparison of physico-mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins used as permanent indirect restoration materials.","authors":"Merve Arıkan, Serdar Akarsu","doi":"10.2340/biid.v13.46113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the physico-mechanical properties (microhardness, surface roughness, and flexural strength) of permanent 3D-printed dental resins with those of a resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and a composite resin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four groups were tested: composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM block (Cerasmart), and two 3D-printed resins (Saremco Crowntec, VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Disk- and bar-shaped specimens were prepared according to ISO standards. Microhardness (Vickers test), surface roughness (profilometer), and flexural strength (three-point bending test) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cerasmart showed the highest microhardness (85.53 ± 3.97) and flexural strength (184.45 ± 9.42), while Saremco Crowntec exhibited the lowest microhardness (38.63 ± 2.14). Clearfil Majesty had the highest surface roughness (1.24 ± 0.35). Although the measured flexural strength values of 3D-printed resins exceeded the ISO 4049 minimum threshold, several samples were close to or below the limit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this in vitro study, 3D-printed permanent resins exhibited mechanical properties comparable to conventional restorative materials in certain parameters, although inferior hardness values were observed compared to CAD/CAM blocks. Nevertheless, the present findings should be interpreted with caution, and further long-term clinical investigations are necessary before translating these results into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":"13 ","pages":"46113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13196275/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.46113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the physico-mechanical properties (microhardness, surface roughness, and flexural strength) of permanent 3D-printed dental resins with those of a resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and a composite resin.
Methods: Four groups were tested: composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM block (Cerasmart), and two 3D-printed resins (Saremco Crowntec, VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Disk- and bar-shaped specimens were prepared according to ISO standards. Microhardness (Vickers test), surface roughness (profilometer), and flexural strength (three-point bending test) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (p < 0.05).
Results: Cerasmart showed the highest microhardness (85.53 ± 3.97) and flexural strength (184.45 ± 9.42), while Saremco Crowntec exhibited the lowest microhardness (38.63 ± 2.14). Clearfil Majesty had the highest surface roughness (1.24 ± 0.35). Although the measured flexural strength values of 3D-printed resins exceeded the ISO 4049 minimum threshold, several samples were close to or below the limit.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, 3D-printed permanent resins exhibited mechanical properties comparable to conventional restorative materials in certain parameters, although inferior hardness values were observed compared to CAD/CAM blocks. Nevertheless, the present findings should be interpreted with caution, and further long-term clinical investigations are necessary before translating these results into clinical practice.