3D‐printed resins for provisional dental restorations: Comparison of mechanical and biological properties. Issue 5 (20th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Atria, Pablo J.; Bordin, Dimorvan; Marti, Felipe; Nayak, Vasudev Vivekanand; Conejo, Julian; Benalcázar Jalkh, Ernesto; Witek, Lukasz; Sampaio, Camila S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry. Volume 34:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 804
• Page End: 815
• Publication Date: 2022-02-20
• Subjects: 3D print -- 3D printed resins -- additive manufacturing -- finite element analysis -- monomers -- Weibull; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12888
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1496-4155

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To characterize the mechanical and biological properties of three commercially available resins, which are currently used for provisional restorations and to compare them to an experimental resin intended for definitive fixed dental prostheses. Materials and methods: Three commercially available resins: Crowntec (CT, Saremco), Temporary C&B (FL, Formlabs), C&B MFH (ND, Nextdent), and the experimental resin: Permanent Bridge (PB, Saremco) were printed and subjected to biaxial flexural strength test, finite element analysis, Weibull analysis, scanning electron microscopy, cell proliferation, immunohistochemistry and cytotoxicity assays. Samples from CT, PB, and ND were provided directly from the manufacturers ensuring ideal workflow. FL was printed using the workflow as recommended by the manufacturer, using a Formlabs 2 printer and their post‐processing units Form Wash and Form Cure. Results: From the tested resins, PB yielded the best overall results in terms of mechanical properties. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity did not show any significant differences among materials. PB showed higher values for probability of survival predictions (35%) when subjected to 250 MPa loads, whereas the other materials did not reach 10%. Significance: Despite mechanical differences between the evaluated materials, the outcomes suggest that 3D printed provisional resins may be used in clinical settings, following the manufacturers indications. New materials intended for long‐term use, such as the PB resin, yielded higher mechanical properties compared to the other materials. Alternative printing and post‐processing methods have not yet been evaluated and should be avoided until further literature is available. Clinical significance: 3D printed resins for provisional restorations have become popular with the emergence of new technologies. In this study, we evaluated three different commercially available resins for provisional restorations and one new experimental resin. The results from this study indicate that commercially available resins could be used in clinical settings under certain conditions and limited periods of time. Following the manufacturers protocols is of paramount importance to not compromise these properties.