Comparison of Mechanical Properties of 3D‐Printed, CAD/CAM, and Conventional Denture Base Materials

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 29; no. 6; pp. 524 - 528
• Main Authors: Prpić, Vladimir, Schauperl, Zdravko, Ćatić, Amir, Dulčić, Nikša, Čimić, Samir
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2020
• Subjects: Acrylic resin; Dentistry; denture base; Dentures; flexural strength; Mechanical properties; Polymerization; Polymethylmethacrylate; surface hardness; Acrylic resin; denture base; flexural strength; surface hardness
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13175

Purpose To evaluate and compare the mechanical properties (flexural strength and surface hardness) of different materials and technologies for denture base fabrication. The study emphasized the digital technologies of computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three‐dimensional (3D) printing. Materials and Methods A total of 160 rectangular specimens were fabricated from three conventional heat‐polymerized (ProBase Hot, Paladon 65, and Interacryl Hot), three CAD/CAM produced (IvoBase CAD, Interdent CC disc PMMA, and Polident CAD/CAM disc), one 3D‐printed (NextDent Base), and one polyamide material (Vertex ThermoSens) for denture base fabrication. The flexural strength test was the three‐point flexure test, while hardness testing was conducted using the Brinell method. The data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics (α = 0.05). Results During flexural testing, the IvoBase CAD and Vertex ThermoSens specimens did not fracture during loading. The flexural strength values of the other groups ranged from 71.7 ± 7.4 MPa to 111.9 ± 4.3 MPa. The surface hardness values ranged from 67.13 ± 10.64 MPa to 145.66 ± 2.22 MPa. There were significant differences between the tested materials for both flexural strength and surface hardness. There were also differences between some materials with the same polymerization type. CAD/CAM and polyamide materials had the highest flexural strength values. Two groups of CAD/CAM materials had the highest surface hardness values, while a third, along with the polyamide material, had the lowest. The 3D‐printed materials had the lowest flexural strength values. Conclusions Generally, CAD/CAM materials show better mechanical properties than heat‐polymerized and 3D‐printed acrylics do. Nevertheless, a material's polymerization type is no guarantee of its optimal mechanical properties.