Comparison of physico-mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins used as permanent indirect restoration materials.

Biomaterial investigations in dentistry Pub Date : 2026-05-20 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2340/biid.v13.46113
Merve Arıkan, Serdar Akarsu
{"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.

3d打印树脂作为永久性间接修复材料的物理力学性能比较。
目的:比较永久性3d打印牙科树脂与树脂纳米陶瓷计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)块体和复合树脂的物理力学性能(显微硬度、表面粗糙度和抗弯强度)。方法:测试四组:复合树脂(Clearfil Majesty美学)、树脂纳米陶瓷CAD/CAM块(Cerasmart)和两种3d打印树脂(Saremco Crowntec、VarseoSmile Crown Plus)。圆盘形和条形试样按ISO标准制备。显微硬度(维氏试验),表面粗糙度(轮廓仪)和抗弯强度(三点弯曲试验)进行了评估。采用方差分析和Tukey事后检验对数据进行分析(p < 0.05)。结果:Cerasmart的显微硬度最高(85.53±3.97),抗弯强度最高(184.45±9.42),Saremco Crowntec的显微硬度最低(38.63±2.14)。Clearfil Majesty的表面粗糙度最高(1.24±0.35)。虽然3d打印树脂的弯曲强度测量值超过了ISO 4049的最低阈值,但一些样品接近或低于限值。结论:在体外研究的限制下,3d打印的永久性树脂在某些参数上表现出与传统修复材料相当的机械性能,尽管与CAD/CAM块相比,观察到的硬度值较低。然而,目前的发现应该谨慎解释,在将这些结果转化为临床实践之前,需要进一步的长期临床研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书