In vitro analysis shows 3D-printed resin outperforms conventional dimethacrylate in strength and hardness, but absorbs more water.
Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of two resins used for provisional prostheses: a direct self-curing dimethacrylate resin and a 3D-printed resin, in order to assess their potential for different clinical applications. Methods. Flexural strength, microhardness, wear resistance, and water absorption were evaluated in accordance with ISO 4049 and ISO 10477. Samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, X-ray spectroscopy, and mechanical testing, including flexural, wear, and scratch assays. Results. The 3D-printed resin demonstrated superior flexural strength (128 ± 2 MPa vs. 127 ± 16 MPa), microhardness (19.45 HV vs. 8.10 HV, p < 0.05), and wear resistance (mean wear area: 0.030 mm2 vs. 0.047 mm2) compared to the self-curing dimethacrylate composite. However, it exhibited significantly higher water absorption (55.98 µg/mm3 vs. 15.0 µg/mm3), which may compromise its long-term durability in humid environments. Conclusions. Overall, the 3D-printed resin shows promising mechanical performance, but its high-water absorption remains a limitation for extended use. Further studies are required to evaluate its degradation and behavior under intraoral conditions. Clinical relevance. For the time being, self-curing resins remain the preferred choice for long-term provisional prostheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valencia-Blanco et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: