Cytotoxicity of printed resin-based splint materials
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2025
Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites
Published on: November 9, 2014
Johann Wulff1, Helmut Schweikl2, Martin Rosentritt1
1Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, UKR University Hospital Regensburg, 93042 Regensburg, Germany.
Objectives:
Printed splints may be an alternative as a treatment of functional disorders in addition to physical, manual and physiological therapeutics. The objective is to investigate whether different 3D printed splint materials, which are fabricated with different fabrication orientation and post-processing (washing and post polymerisation) exhibit different in vitro cytotoxicity.
Material And Methods:
600 discs (n = 25 per group, 5mmx1mm) were printed (P30+ DLP-printer, Straumann, CH; 100 µm layer) from splint materials (M1: Luxaprint OrthoPlus, DMG, G; M2: V-Print Splint, Voco, G). Printing was performed under 90° (A1), 45° (A2) or 0° (A3) alignment to the building platform. Specimens were either automatically washed (W1) (Straumann P Wash, Straumann, CH) or manually cleaned (W2) (Voco Pre-/Main-Clean protocol, Voco, G), and post polymerization was performed (P1: Cure, Straumann, CH; P2: Otoflash N171, Ernst Hinrichs Dental, G). RAW264.7 mouse macrophages were exposed to extracts of the specimens and cytotoxicity was determined as cell survival using a crystal violet assay. Optical density values obtained from exposed cell cultures were normalized to untreated controls (100%), summarized as means and statistically analyzed (ANOVA, α=0.05).
Results:
Cell survival varied between 9.1+/-1.3% (alignment A2/post cure P2/material M2/wash system W2) and 58.5+/-5.9% (alignment A1/post cure P1/material M1/wash system W1). Univariate analysis of variance revealed significant differences between mean values for post cure (p = 0.000), wash system (p = 0.002) and materials (p = 0.000), but not for the alignment (p = 0.406). With standardised washing and adapted post cure, both tested materials provided lowest cytotoxicity even in all three printing alignments.
Conclusions:
The selection of the material as well as the post-processing (post-polymerization, washing procedure) show influence on the in vitro cytotoxicity. Alignment during manufacturing does not affect toxicity.
Clinical Relevance:
Materials, washing and post-polymerization should be matched to reduce cytotoxic effects during additive manufacturing.
