Mechanical Properties of Additive-Manufactured Composite-Based Resins for Permanent Indirect Restorations: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Protocol
2.2. Research Question
2.3. Eligibility Criteria
2.3.1. Inclusion Criteria
2.3.2. Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Information Source
2.5. Search
2.5.1. PubMed
2.5.2. Scopus
2.5.3. Web of Science
2.6. Selection of Sources of Evidence
2.7. Data Charting Process and Data Items
- Study characteristics:
- ○
- Authors;
- ○
- Year of publication.
- Materials:
- ○
- Additive-manufacturing resin;
- ○
- Subtractive-manufacturing resin;
- ○
- Conventional-manufacturing resin;
- ○
- Commercial name;
- ○
- Sample size.
- Material manufacturer
- Material indication:
- ○
- Temporary indirect restorations;
- ○
- Permanent indirect restorations;
- ○
- Direct restorations.
- Printer technology:
- ○
- SLA;
- ○
- DLP.
- 3D printing parameters:
- ○
- Cleaning method;
- ○
- Post-curing method;
- ○
- Print orientation;
- ○
- Print layer thickness.
- Measurements:
- ○
- Mechanical properties;
- ○
- Other properties.
- Geometry of the 3D-printed specimens:
- ○
- Size/dimension;
- ○
- Shape.
- Results.
2.8. Synthesis of Results
3. Results
3.1. Mechanical Properties
3.1.1. Vickers Hardness
3.1.2. Flexural Strength
3.1.3. Elastic Modulus
3.1.4. Compression Strength
3.1.5. Tensile Strength
3.1.6. Fracture Resistance
3.1.7. Wear
3.2. Factors Indirectly Influencing Mechanical Properties
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Composite materials for 3D-printed dental restorations have lower hardness and flexural strength compared to ceramics and conventional composites. Fracture resistance results are inconclusive, but repairs are often possible. Thickness influences compressive strength, with printed crowns weaker than subtractive-manufactured ones.
- Additive materials start rougher but smooth out after polishing. However, there is no consensus over whether their roughness exceeds plaque accumulation thresholds.
- In summary, 3D-printed composites do not yet meet the proper mechanical properties to function as long-lasting permanent restorations. It is essential to approach the clinical application of these materials with a critical mindset due to the limited amount of available evidence. Currently, there is a need for long-term in vivo studies on the use of additive-manufactured restorations.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dawood, A.; Marti, B.M.; Sauret-Jackson, V.; Darwood, A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 219, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siqueira, J.R.C.d.S.; Rodriguez, R.M.M.; Campos, T.M.B.; Ramos, N.d.C.; Bottino, M.A.; Tribst, J.P.M. Characterization of Microstructure, Optical Properties, and Mechanical Behavior of a Temporary 3D Printing Resin: Impact of Post-Curing Time. Materials 2024, 17, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tian, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, X.; Wang, J.; Hou, X.; Li, K.; Lu, X.; Shi, H.; Lee, E.-S.; Jiang, H.B. A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and Applications. Scanning 2021, 2021, 950131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozoğulları, H.N.; Temizci, T. Evaluation of the Color Stability, Stainability, and Surface Roughness of Permanent Composite-Based Milled and 3D Printed CAD/CAM Restorative Materials after Thermocycling. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalman, L.; Tribst, J.P.M. Quality Assessment and Comparison of 3D-Printed and Milled Zirconia Anterior Crowns and Veneers: In Vitro Pilot Study. Eur. J. Gen. Dent. 2024, 13, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhargav, A.; Sanjairaj, V.; Rosa, V.; Feng, L.W.; Fuh, Y.H.J. Applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: A review. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2018, 106, 2058–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borella, P.S.; Alvares, L.A.S.; Moura, G.F.R.M.T.H.; Soares, C.J.; Zancopé, K.; Mendonça, G.; Rodrigues, F.P.; das Neves, F.D. Physical and mechanical properties of four 3D-printed resins at two different thick layers: An in vitro comparative study. Dent. Mater. 2023, 39, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.; Hasan, N.; Gupta, F.A.; Nadaf, A.; Ahmad, L.; Aqil, M.; Kesharwani, P. Review on 3D printing in dentistry: Conventional to personalized dental care. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2022, 33, 2292–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Li, P.; Chu, F.; Shen, G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. J. Orofac. Orthop. Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopädie 2019, 80, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revilla-Leon, M.; Ozcan, M. Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used for Processing Polymers: Current Status and Potential Application in Prosthetic Dentistry. J. Prosthodont. Implant. Esthet. Reconstr. Dent. 2019, 28, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saini, R.S.; Gurumurthy, V.; Quadri, S.A.; Bavabeedu, S.S.; Abdelaziz, K.M.; Okshah, A.; Alshadidi, A.A.F.; Yessayan, L.; Mosaddad, S.A.; Heboyan, A. The flexural strength of 3D-printed provisional restorations fabricated with different resins: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Haj Husain, N.; Feilzer, A.J.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Özcan, M. Effect of hydrothermal aging on the microhardness of high- and low-viscosity conventional and additively manufactured polymers. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 128, 822.e1–822.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balestra, D.; Lowther, M.; Goracci, C.; Mandurino, M.; Cortili, S.; Paolone, G.; Louca, C.; Vichi, A. 3D Printed Materials for Permanent Restorations in Indirect Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry: A Critical Review of the Literature. Materials 2024, 17, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, M.; Ender, A.; Egli, G.; Özcan, M.; Mehl, A. Fracture load of CAD/CAM-fabricated and 3D-printed composite crowns as a function of material thickness. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 23, 2777–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferracane, J.L. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bora, P.V.; Ahmed, A.S.; Alford, A.; Pitttman, K.; Thomas, V.; Lawson, N.C. Characterization of materials used for 3D printing dental crowns and hybrid prostheses. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 36, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cakmak, G.; Donmez, M.B.; de Paula, M.S.; Akay, C.; Fonseca, M.; Kahveci, C.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Yilmaz, B. Surface roughness, optical properties, and microhardness of additively and subtractively manufactured CAD-CAM materials after brushing and coffee thermal cycling. J. Prosthodont. Implant. Esthet. Reconstr. Dent. 2023, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbani, K.; Hardan, L.; Eid, R.; Alharbi, N.S.H.; Ozcan, M.; Salameh, Z. Fracture Resistance of Three-unit Fixed Dental Prostheses Fabricated with Milled and 3D Printed Composite-based Materials. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2021, 22, 985–990. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Donmez, M.B.; Okutan, Y. Marginal gap and fracture resistance of implant-supported 3D-printed definitive composite crowns: An in vitro study. J. Dent. 2022, 124, 104216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farkas, A.Z.; Galatanu, S.-V.; Nagib, R. The Influence of Printing Layer Thickness and Orientation on the Mechanical Properties of DLP 3D-Printed Dental Resin. Polymers 2023, 15, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guven, M.E.; Cakmak, G.; Donmez, M.B.; Yilmaz, B. Evaluation of Dimensional Stability and Occlusal Wear of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured Resin-Based Crowns after Thermomechanical Aging. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandmair, M.N.; Kleber, C.; Ströbele, D.A.; von See, C. AFM Analysis of a Three-Point Flexure Tested, 3D Printing Definitive Restoration Material for Dentistry. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suksuphan, P.; Krajangta, N.; Didron, P.P.; Wasanapiarnpong, T.; Rakmanee, T. Marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of milled and 3D-printed CAD/CAM hybrid dental crown materials with various occlusal thicknesses. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2024, 68, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Türksayar, A.A.D.; Demirel, M.; Donmez, M.B.; Olcay, E.O.; Eyüboğlu, T.F.; Özcan, M. Comparison of wear and fracture resistance of additively and subtractively manufactured screw-retained, implant-supported crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023, 132, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, M.; Ender, A.; Attin, T.; Mehl, A. Fracture load of three-unit full-contour fixed dental prostheses fabricated with subtractive and additive CAD/CAM technology. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020, 24, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farhan, T.; Kumar, N.; Amin, F.; Mahmood, S.J. Exploration of the Customized Fixtures for the Evaluation of Three-point Bending Strength of Dental Resin Composites. J. Dent. Mater. Tech. 2020, 9, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 4049; Dentistry–Polymer-Based Filling, Restorative and Luting Materials. International Organization for Standardisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
- Sulaiman, T.A. Materials in digital dentistry—A review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 32, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jain, S.; Sayed, M.E.; Shetty, M.; Alqahtani, S.M.; Al Wadei, M.H.D.; Gupta, S.G.; Othman, A.A.A.; Alshehri, A.H.; Alqarni, H.; Mobarki, A.H.; et al. Physical and Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Provisional Crowns and Fixed Dental Prosthesis Resins Compared to CAD/CAM Milled and Conventional Provisional Resins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2022, 14, 2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goujat, A.; Abouelleil, H.; Colon, P.; Jeannin, C.; Pradelle, N.; Seux, D.; Grosgogeat, B. Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 119, 384–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, S.M.; Yap, A.U.J.; Chandra, S.P.; Lim, C.T. Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: Comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2004, 71B, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vichi, A.; Zhao, Z.; Paolone, G.; Scotti, N.; Mutahar, M.; Goracci, C.; Louca, C. Factory Crystallized Silicates for Monolithic Metal-Free Restorations: A Flexural Strength and Translucency Comparison Test. Materials 2022, 15, 7834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zordk, W.; Elmisery, A.; Ghazy, M. Hybrid-abutment-restoration: Effect of material type on torque maintenance and fracture resistance after thermal aging. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2020, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martín-Ortega, N.; Sallorenzo, A.; Casajús, J.; Cervera, A.; Revilla-León, M.; Gómez-Polo, M. Fracture resistance of additive manufactured and milled implant-supported interim crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corbani, K.; Hardan, L.; Skienhe, H.; Özcan, M.; Alharbi, N.; Salameh, Z. Effect of material thickness on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of 3D-printed composite crowns. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2020, 23, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Unkovskiy, A.; Bui, P.H.-B.; Schille, C.; Geis-Gerstorfer, J.; Huettig, F.; Spintzyk, S. Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, e324–e333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nold, J.; Wesemann, C.; Rieg, L.; Binder, L.; Witkowski, S.; Spies, B.C.; Kohal, R.J. Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth. Materials 2021, 14, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grzebieluch, W.; Mikulewicz, M.; Kaczmarek, U. Resin Composite Materials for Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations: A Comparison of Selected Mechanical Properties. J. Healthc. Eng. 2021, 2021, 828954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawson, N.C.; Bansal, R.; Burgess, J.O. Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, e275–e283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimmer, T.; Erdelt, K.J.; Eichberger, M.; Roos, M.; Edelhoff, D.; Stawarczyk, B. Influence of abutment model materials on the fracture loads of three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 33, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaim, B.; Serin Kalay, T.; Purcek, G. Friction and wear behavior of chairside CAD-CAM materials against different types of antagonists: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 128, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mundhe, K.; Jain, V.; Pruthi, G.; Shah, N. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 114, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzinger, M.; Hahnel, S.; Preis, V.; Rosentritt, M. Polishing effects and wear performance of chairside CAD/CAM materials. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Daher, R.; Ardu, S.; di Bella, E.; Krejci, I.; Duc, O. Efficiency of 3D-printed composite resin restorations compared with subtractive materials: Evaluation of fatigue behavior, cost, and time of production. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 131, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heimer, S.; Schmidlin, P.R.; Roos, M.; Stawarczyk, B. Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 117, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oh, W.; DeLong, R.; Anusavice, K.J. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: A literature review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2002, 87, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piedra-Cascón, W.; Krishnamurthy, V.R.; Att, W.; Revilla-León, M. 3D printing parameters, supporting structures, slicing, and post-processing procedures of vat-polymerization additive manufacturing technologies: A narrative review. J. Dent. 2021, 109, 103630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elderton, R.J. Clinical Studies Concerning Re-Restoration of Teeth. Adv. Dent. Res. 1990, 4, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbi, P.; Ordueri, T.M.; Öztürk-Bozkurt, F.; Toz-Akalın, T.; Ateş, M.; Özcan, M. 3D-printed resin composite posterior fixed dental prosthesis: A prospective clinical trial up to 1 year. Front. Dent. Med. 2024, 5, 1390600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Siqueira Ferreira Anzaloni Saavedra, G.; Tribst, J.P.M.; de Carvalho Ramos, N.; de Melo, R.M.; Rodrigues, V.A.; Ramos, G.F.; Bottino, M.A. Feldspathic and Lithium Disilicate Onlays with a 2-Year Follow-up: Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. Braz. Dent. J. 2021, 32, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heboyan, A.; Zafar, M.S.; Karobari, M.I.; Tribst, J.P.M. Insights into Polymeric Materials for Prosthodontics and Dental Implantology. Materials 2022, 15, 5383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Material and Sample Size | Material Manufacturer | Material Indication | Printer Technology | 3D Printing Parameters | Measurements | Geometry of 3D Printed Specimens | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al-Haj Husain et al., 2022 [12] | Additive manufactured: 1. Optiprint Temp (OP) 2. C&B MFH (ND) 3. Crowntec (SA) 4. Temp Print (TP) 5. 3DELTA ETEMP (DM) 6. MED690 (ST) Conventionally manufactured: 7. Gradia Direct (GR, GC) 8. Clearfil Majesty (CM) 9. Tetric EvoCeram (TE) 10. Gradia Direct Flo (GR-F, GC) 11. Clearfil Majesty Flow (CM-F) 12. Tetric EvoFlow (TE-F) A total of n = 240 was measured. For each material group n = 20, with n = 10 for the aged and n = 10 for the non-aged materials. | 1. Dentona 2. NextDent 3. Saremco Dental AG 4. GC 5. Deltamed 6. Stratasys, Ltd. 7. GC 8. Kuraray Noritake 9. Ivoclar AG 10. GC 11. Kuraray Noritake 12. Ivoclar AG | The additive-manufactured polymers tested in this study were marketed for interim restorations, except for one material (Saremco print CROWNTEC; Saremco Dental AG) which was also marketed for definitive restorations. The conventional composite resins were marketed for definitive restorations. | Specimens of all groups except of ST printed with a DLP 3D printer (Asiga Max UV; Asiga). The group ST was processed with the PolyJet printing technology by using the corresponding printer (Stratasys J700; Stratasys, Ltd.). | The position of the build platform, printing thickness (50 μm), and orientation (round surface facing the build platform) were identical in all groups. The specimens were submerged in an ultrasonic bath with 99% isopropyl alcohol for 5 min. After cleaning, the specimens were retrieved, dried, and polymerized in an ultraviolet (UV)-polymerization machine (Otoflash Post Curing Light Pulsing Unit; EnvisionTEC) with full spectrum (300 to 700 nm) for 10 min. | Hydrothermal aging Vickers hardness | Cylindrical shaped specimens Ø10 × 2 mm | The choice of the material had a significant effect and resulted in lower hardness for the three-dimensionally printed materials than for the conventional composite resins. Under fatigue conditions, the choice of the material showed no significant difference when the Vickers microhardness was evaluated. |
Bora et al., 2023 [16] | Additive manufactured: 1. C&B MFH 2. Ceramic crown 3. OnX 4. OnX Tough Reference materials: 5. Lava Ultimate (A milled composite resin) 6. Filtek Supreme (A conventional composite) 7. IPS e.max CAD (A ceramic) A total of n = 70 was measured. For each material group n = 10. | 1. NextDent 2. SprintRay 3. SprintRay 4. SprintRay 5. 3M 6. 3M 7. Ivoclar AG | 1. 3D-printed resin for provisional crowns 2. 3D-printed resin for permanent crowns 3 and 4. 3D-printed resin for provisional hybrid dentures 5. Milled resin-composite for permanent crowns 6. Light-cured resin composite for direct fillings 7. Milled ceramic for permanent crowns | All 3D-printed resin materials were printed in a vat digital light processing (DLP) printer (Pro 55, SprintRay, Los Angeles, CA, USA). | The specimens were positioned on the build platform such that the long axis of the bar was oriented parallel to the build platform (parallel with the horizon) and printed with a 100 μm layer thickness. Specimens were cleaned using 91% ethanol and post-cured in a cure box (ProCure II, SprintRay). | Filler weight percentage (wt%) Filler and resin composition Flexural strength/modulus Vickers hardness | Rectangular blocks 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm (flexural strength/modulus) Rectangular blocks 4 mm × 4 mm × 6 mm (Hardness) | All 3D-printed resins, for both interim and definitive restorations, had significantly lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than the conventional and milled resin composites and ceramic material (p < 0.001). |
Borella et al., 2023 [7] | Additive manufactured: 1. VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VSC) 2. NextDent C&B MFH (MFH) 3. Nanolab 3D (NNL) 4. Resilab 3D Temp (RSL) A total of n = 80 was measured. For each material group n = 10 at 50 μm and n = 10 at 100 μm. | 1. Bego 2. Vertex-Dental B.V. 3. Wilcos do Brasil Ltda 4. Wilcos do Brasil Ltda | 1. A ceramic-filled hybrid material for 3D printing of permanent restorations 2. 3D-printed resin for provisional crowns 3. Recommended for printing veneers, onlays, inlays, and bridges 4. Recommended for printing inlays, onlays, crowns, and temporary bridges | Digital light processing (DLP) (Anycubic Photon Mono, Anycubic 3D) | Resins printed at two different layer thicknesses (50 and 100 μm). Build orientation: 45°. The specimens were washed with 99.5% p.a. isopropyl alcohol for 5 min and light-cured for 30 min. | Surface roughness (μm) Flexural strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa) Vickers hardness (N/mm2) | Bars 25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm | VSC showed the highest VHN for 50 μm (27.6 N/mm2). From the four tested resins, VSC had the second highest E-modulus in both layer thicknesses (50 μm: 4.51 GPa and 100 μm: 4.03 GPa). The flexural strength (FS) for VSC differs within the layer thicknesses. For 50 μm, an FS of 124 MPa was found, whereas 100 μm had an FS of 115.2 MPa. The surface roughness of VSC also differs within the layer thicknesses. The highest value was found for 100 μm (50 μm: 0.23 and 100 μm: 0.27 μm). The layer thickness affected all performed tests except the elastic modulus. |
Bozoğulları & Temizci, 2023 [4] | Additive manufactured: 1. Crowntec (SC) 2. Permanent Crown Resin (FP) Subtractive manufactured: 3. Cerasmart 270 (CS) 4. Vita Enamic (VE) Reference material: 5. Vita Mark II (feldspathic glass ceramic) (VM) A total of n = 150 was measured. For each material n = 10 for surface roughness and n = 20 for color stability and stainability. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Formlabs Inc. 3. GC Corp. 4. Vita Zahnfabrik 5. Vita Zahnfabrik | For definitive restorations | 1. DLP (Asiga MAX U, Asiga, Sydney, Australia) 2. SLA (Form 3, Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA) | All specimens were printed with a layer thickness of 50 μm and a build orientation of 90°. The DLP specimens were cleaned with an alcohol-soaked (96%) cloth and then subjected to a post-polymerization process with 4000 lighting exposures using a polymerization device. The SLA printed specimens were washed with 99% isopropyl alcohol for 3 min using ultrasonic cleaning to remove any excess resin; the dried specimens were then subjected to a post-polymerization process using FormCure (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA) for 30 min at 60 °C according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. | Color stability Stainability Surface roughness (Ra) (The Ra values and the color parameters were measured before and after thermocycling) | Rectangular blocks 14 mm × 12 mm × 2 mm | Based on the data of the study, tested 3D-printed permanent composite resins showed similar or lower roughness values than tested milled CAD/CAM materials, which were clinically acceptable values. All investigated materials showed acceptable surface roughness after thermocycling that was equal to or below the plaque accumulation threshold of 0.2 μm. The thermocycling increased the roughness of all tested materials. However, this increase was not significant. |
Cakmak et al., 2023 [18] | Additive manufactured: 1. Crowntec (CT) 2. VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS) Subtractive manufactured: 3. Brilliant Crios (BC) (a reinforced composite) 4. Vita Enamic (VE) (a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network) 5. Vita Mark II (VM) (a feldspathic ceramic) A total of n = 50 was measured. For each material n = 10. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Bego 3. Coltène AG 4. Vita Zahnfabrik 5. Vita Zahnfabrik | For definitive restorations | A digital light processing (DLP) printer (MAX UV; Asiga). | Specimens were printed with a 50 μm layer thickness. After fabrication, CT specimens were cleaned with an alcohol-soaked (96%) cloth until all resin residues were completely removed, while vs. specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in ethanol for 5 min (3 min of pre-cleaning in reusable ethanol and an additional 2 min in fresh ethanol). Specimens were then air-dried and light-polymerized either with 4000 (CT, 2 × 2000) or 3000 (VS, 2 × 1500) light exposures (Otoflash G171; NK Optik) under a nitrogen oxide gas atmosphere. | Surface roughness Optical properties Vickers microhardness (Measuring took place before and after stimulated brushing and coffee thermal cycling) | Disk-shaped specimens Ø10 × 1 mm | Tested additive-manufactured resins can be considered more susceptible to simulated brushing and coffee thermal cycling than the other materials, given the fact that their surface roughness and color difference values were higher than previously reported acceptability thresholds and because they had the lowest microhardness after all procedures were complete. |
Corbani et al., 2021 [19] | Additive manufactured: 1. Irix Max (3DP) (nanocomposite) 2. Starbond CoS powder 30/Super Porcelain EX3 (the metal-ceramic group) (MC) Subtractive manufactured: 3. Trilor (Fiber-reinforced composite, layered with a nanocomposite (G-aenial Sculpt) (FRC) 4. Ambarino (monolithic high-density polymer) (HDP) A total of n = 60 was measured. For each material n = 15. | 1. DWS 2. Scheftner.dental 3. Bioloren 4. Creamed | For definitive restorations | 1. SLA-based 3D printer (DFAB, DWS, Thiene, Italy) | The thickness of build layer was 50 μm and the maximum laser speed was 5000 mm/seconds. The printed specimens were cleaned with 95% ethanol for 1 min and post-cured using ultraviolet curing unit (Dcure, DWS) for 6 min as per the manufacturer’s instructions. | Fracture resistance | Three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) to replace a missing second maxillary pre-molar | Three-unit FPDs made with monolithic materials, such as 3DP composite and HDPs, showed better fracture resistance in comparison to the layered CAD/CAM FRC FPDs, where chipping was the most common type of failure; 3D-printed and milled composite-based materials might offer a suitable solution for the fabrication of FDPs. |
Donmez & Okutan, 2022 [20] | Additive manufactured: 1. Crowntec (SP) Subtractive manufactured: 2. Brilliant Crios (BC) 3. Vita Enamic (VE) 4. Cerasmart 270 (CS) A total of n = 40 was measured. For each material n = 10. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Coltène AG 3. Vita Zahnfabrik 4. GC Corporation | For definitive restorations | Digital light processing-based 3D printer (MAX UV; ASIGA, Sydney, Australia) | Parameters were set to a thickness of 50 μm, exposure time of 1.8 s, maximum light intensity of 12.14 mW/cm2, z compensation of 0 μm, and xy compensation of 0 μm. Following the printing process, the external surfaces of the crowns were cleaned with an alcohol-soaked (96%) cloth, while the internal surfaces were cleaned with a brush soaked in an alcohol solution until all resin residues were completely removed. Then, crowns were dried by using an air syringe and were light cured with 4000 lighting exposures by using a Xenon lamp-curing device (Otoflash G171; NK Optik, Baierbrunn, Germany) under nitrogen oxide gas atmosphere. | Marginal gap Fracture resistance (maximum load to failure in N) | Full contour maxillary first pre-molar crown. The height of the crown was 9 mm from the buccal aspect and 8.5 mm from the palatal aspect, while the thickness of the restoration was 2 mm in the proximal surfaces, 2.5 mm in the buccal and palatal surfaces, and the minimum occlusal thickness was 1.5 mm. The cement gap used was 25 μm, while the extra cement gap (cement spacer) was set to 50 μm. | Material type did not affect fracture resistance values (p = 0.209). Implant-supported 3D-printed composite crowns showed higher marginal adaptation compared with the milled crowns before and after cementation. In addition, all crowns endured similar forces before fracture. |
Farkas et al., 2023 [21] | NextDent C&B Micro-Filled Hybrid (MFH) A total of n = 36 specimens was measured. With n = 24 for tensile strength testing and n = 12 for compression testing. | 3D Systems | To produce long-term temporaries, crown, and bridges | DLP (Digital light processing) “ANYCUBIC Photon Mono X” 3D printer | Printing at different layer angulations 0°, 45°, and 90°. Different layer thicknesses 100 μm and 50 μm. After printing, all specimens were rinsed multiple times in an alcohol solution (96%) and treated with UV light according to the specifications given by the resin manufacturer. | The influence of printing layer direction and thickness on the tensile and compression properties. | Tensile and compression test specimens were modeled at 0°, 45°, and 90°. | The highest tensile values were obtained for specimens printed with a layer thickness of 0.05 mm. In conclusion, both printing layer direction and thickness influence mechanical proprieties and can be used to alter the materials’ characteristics and make the final printed product more suitable for its intended purposes. |
Guven et al., 2023 [22] | Additive manufactured: 1. Crowntec (MS) Subtractive manufactured: 2. G-CAM (GR) 3. breCAM.monoCOM (PMMA) 4. Brilliant Crios (BC) A total of n = 40 was measured. For each material n = 10. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Graphenano Dental Sl 3. Bredent GmbH) 4. Coltène AG | For definitive restorations | A digital light processing 3-dimensional printer (MAX UV; ASIGA, Sydney, Australia) | MS crowns with 50 μm layer thickness | External surface Mesiodistal width Wear on the occlusal surfaces | A complete mandibular right first molar crown that had 30 μm cement gap, 3 mm thick axial walls, 1.5 mm thick margins, and 1 mm of minimum occlusal thickness. | The additive-manufactured composite resin was more prone to deviations, while reinforced composite resin had lower wear resistance than most of the tested materials. |
Sandmair et al., 2023 [23] | VarseoSmile Crown Plus (A ceramic filled hybrid material for 3D printing) A total of n = 3 was measured. | Bego | For definitive restorations | Digital light processing printer (DLP). | The printing layers were perpendicular to the direction of loading. Post-processing followed the manufacturer’s instructions and consisted of an ultrasonic bath in isopropanol, followed by light curing in the Otoflash (BEGO, Bremen, Germany) with two cycles of 1500 flashes each. | Surface roughness measured through the three-point flexure test. | Rectangular blocks 80 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm | Before and after flexure testing was performed; a higher roughness (Sa) was found for VSC than for conventional materials. However, the Sa for VSC is still clinically acceptable. Furthermore, this study showed that AFM surface analysis is a suitable procedure to investigate surface changes in 3D-printed dental materials. |
Suksuphan et al., 2023 [24] | Additive manufactured: 1. Varseosmile (VS) Subtractive manufactured: 2. Cerasmart (CE) (hybrid nanoceramic) 3. Vita Enamic (VE) (polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN)) A total of n = 90 was measured. For each material (n = 30) three different occlusal thicknesses were made n = 10 for 0.8 mm, n = 10 for 1.0 mm and n = 10 for 1.5 mm. | 1. Bego 2. GC Corporation 3. Vita Zahnfabrik | For definitive restorations | DLP based printer, FreeForm Pro 2 (ASIGA; Anaheim Hills, CA, USA) | Post-cured to the manufacturer’s recommendations. All crowns were cleaned with ultrasonic baths, air-dried. | Marginal adaptation Fracture resistance | A mandibular first molar based on the preparation guidelines for full ceramic crowns (1.0 mm occlusal reduction, 1.2 mm proximal, axial reduction with 6 degrees of convergence profile, 0.8 mm deep chamfer crown margin, and round line angles). Cement spacer was set to 50 μm. Single-molar crowns with occlusal thicknesses of 0.8, 1, and 1.5 mm. | For all occlusal thicknesses, the vs. crowns demonstrated the lowest AMD and MG distances, significantly different from those of the other two milling groups (p < 0.05), whereas CE and VE did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). All vs. crowns were fractured using the lowest loading forces (1480.3 ± 226.1 to 1747.2 ± 108.7 N). No CE and 1 and 1.5 mm VE crowns fractured under a 2000 N maximum load. All hybrid-material crowns demonstrated favorable marginal adaptation within a clinically acceptable range, with 3D printing yielding superior results to milling. All materials could withstand normal occlusal force even with a 0.8 mm occlusal thickness. |
Türksayar et al., 2023 [25] | Additive manufactured: 1. Crowntec (CT) 2. VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS) Subtractive manufactured: 3. Brilliant Crios (BC) (reinforced composite resin) 4. Vita Enamic (EN) (polymer-infiltrated ceramic network) A total of n = 40 was measured. For each material n = 10. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Bego 3. Coltène AG 4. Vita Zahnfabrik | For fixed definitive prostheses | A digital light processing-based 3-dimensional (3D) printer (MAX UV; ASIGA) | Occlusal surface facing the building platform. A 50 μm layer thickness. After fabrication, residual resin on the CT crowns was cleaned with 96% alcohol-soaked cloth, whereas vs. crowns were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath containing 96% ethanol solution for a total of 5 min (3 min of pre-cleaning in reusable ethanol and 2 min of cleaning in fresh ethanol). After cleaning, all crowns were dried with an air syringe. CT crowns were then placed in a xenon polymerization device (Otoflash G171; NK Optik) and polymerized under nitrogen oxide gas atmosphere (2000 × 2 lighting exposures). Thereafter, vs. crowns were placed in the same xenon polymerization device and polymerized under nitrogen oxide gas atmosphere (1500 × 2 lighting exposures). | Volume loss (mm3), maximum wear depth (mm2), and fracture resistance after thermomechanical aging | Standardized screw-retained, implant-supported maxillary right first pre-molar crowns, with screw access channel. | CT and vs. had higher volume loss and maximum wear depth than BC and EN (p = 0.001). Additive-manufactured screw-retained, implant-supported crowns had higher volume loss and maximum wear depth. |
Zimmermann et al., 2018 [14] | Additive manufactured: 1. els-3D (3D-printed composite) (3D) Subtractive manufactured (particle filled composites): 2. Lava Ultimate (LU) 3. Cerasmart (CE) 4. Brilliant Crios (BC) Control groups: 5. Vita Enamic, hybrid ceramic (VE) 6. e.max CAD, lithium disilicate ceramic (EC) A total of n = 180 was measured. For each material (n = 30), three different occlusal thicknesses were made n = 10 for 0.5 mm, n = 10 for 1.0 mm and n = 10 for 1.5 mm. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. 3M ESPE 3. GC Corporation 4. Coltène AG 5. Vita Zahnfabrik 6. Ivoclar Vivadent AG | For definitive restorations | DLP 3D printing device (Freeform Pro 2, ASIGA; Anaheim Hills, CA, USA) | The spacer parameter was set to 80 μm. Parameters were set to slice thickness 50 μm, exposure time 0.6 s, minimum/maximum light intensity 13.14 mW/cm2, z compensation 0 μm, xy compensation 0 μm. Crowns of group 3D were first cleaned and washed in isopropanol 98% for 2 × 3 min using ultrasonic and then light cured with 4000 lighting exposures using Otoflash G171 device under nitrogen oxide gas atmosphere. | Fatigue Fracture load | Single molar crown | All particle-filled composite crowns with 0.5 mm thickness survived fatigue testing. The maximum fracture loading forces significantly varied among the groups tested. There was a statistically significant two-way interaction between material and thickness, p = 0.003. |
Zimmermann et al., 2020 [26] | Additive manufactured: 1. els 3D resin even stronger (3D) Subtractive manufactured: 2. Brilliant Crios (BC) 3. Telio CAD (TC) 4. e.max CAD (EX) 5. inCoris TZI C (TZ) A total of n = 60 was measured. For each material n = 12. | 1. Saremco Dental AG 2. Coltène AG 3. Ivoclar Vivadent AG 4. Ivoclar Vivadent AG 5. Dentsply Sirona | Manufacturers’ recommendation for indications of use for the respective CAD/CAM materials is up to a permanent four-unit FDP for group TZ, up to a permanent three-unit FDP up to the second bicuspid as distal abutment for group EX, and up to a four-unit temporary FDP for group TC. Indications of use for groups BC and 3D are limited to permanent single-tooth restorations. | The Asiga Freeform PRO2 DLP printer (ASIGA; Anaheim Hills, CA, USA) | Thickness at 50 μm, exposure time at 1 s, minimum/maximum light intensity at 18.34 mW/cm2, z compensation at 0 μm, and xy compensation at 0 μm. Post-processing protocol for FDPs of group 3D comprised cleaning and washing in isopropanol for 2 × 5 min using ultrasonic cleaner with a subsequent light curing with 4000 lighting exposure using a Xenon lamp curing device with a N2-gas atmosphere (Otoflash G171; NK Optik, Baierbrunn, Germany) (2 flashlight lamps, wavelength range 280–580 nm, peaks at approximately 480 and 530 nm). | Fracture load (N) | Three-unit full contour fixed dental prostheses (FDP’s) replacing one molar, 36. Bridge 35–37 connector size 16 mm2; anatomic-ovoid-shaped connector design; minimum occlusal thickness 1.5 mm. | Statistically significant differences were found for the fracture load of three-unit FDPs fabricated from different CAD/CAM materials (p < 0.05). The highest mean fracture load was found for group TZ (2099.5 ± 382.1 N). Group 3D showed the lowest mean fracture load (928.9 ± 193.8 N). Group BC performed statistically significantly differently from group 3D with a mean fracture load of 1494.8 ± 214.5 N (p < 0.05). Particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM materials showed fracture load values within the range of ceramic materials with a specific indication of use for three-unit FDPs. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pot, G.J.; Van Overschelde, P.A.; Keulemans, F.; Kleverlaan, C.J.; Tribst, J.P.M. Mechanical Properties of Additive-Manufactured Composite-Based Resins for Permanent Indirect Restorations: A Scoping Review. Materials 2024, 17, 3951. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163951
Pot GJ, Van Overschelde PA, Keulemans F, Kleverlaan CJ, Tribst JPM. Mechanical Properties of Additive-Manufactured Composite-Based Resins for Permanent Indirect Restorations: A Scoping Review. Materials. 2024; 17(16):3951. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163951
Chicago/Turabian StylePot, Giny Judith, Patricia Anna Van Overschelde, Filip Keulemans, Cornelis Johannes Kleverlaan, and João Paulo Mendes Tribst. 2024. "Mechanical Properties of Additive-Manufactured Composite-Based Resins for Permanent Indirect Restorations: A Scoping Review" Materials 17, no. 16: 3951. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17163951