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

Purpose: The 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 Methods: The 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.

Results: The 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).

Conclusion: 3D-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.