Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Purpose To compare mechanical, optical, and physical properties of denture base materials fabricated with various 3D printing systems to reference milled and conventionally heat‐processed denture base materials. Materials and Methods Specimens of denture base materials were either 3D‐printed (DLP in‐office printer, CLIP laboratory printer, or material jetting laboratory printer), milled, or heat processed. 3‐point bend flexural strength testing was performed after 50 hours of water storage following 1hour of drying (dry testing) or in 37°C water (wet testing). Fracture toughness was performed with a notched beam specimen after 7 days of water storage and tested dry. The translucency parameter was measured with 2 mm thick specimens. Stain resistance was measured as color change following 14 days of storage in 37°C coffee. Water sorption was measured following 7 days of storage in 37°C distilled water. Results For dry testing, all but one of the 3D‐printed materials attained higher or equivalent flexural strength as the reference materials. For wet testing, all 3D‐printed materials attained higher or equivalent strength as the reference materials and dry‐tested materials. For 3D‐printed materials, wet testing increased displacement before fracture whereas it decreased displacement for the reference materials. Only two of the 3D‐printed materials had similar fracture toughness as the reference materials. One of the 3D‐printed materials was more translucent and one was more opaque than the reference materials. Only one of the 3D‐printed materials absorbed more water than the reference materials. Conclusion 3D‐printed denture base materials have mostly equivalent mechanical, optical, and physical properties to conventional and milled denture base materials.
Lawson et al. (Tue,) studied this question.