Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Characterization of materials used for 3D printing dental crowns and hybrid prostheses
Pranit V Bora1, Akram Sayed Ahmed1, Aaron Alford2
1Division of Biomaterials, UAB School of Dentistry, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Objectives:
To compare the filler weight percentage (wt%), filler and resin composition, flexural strength, modulus, and hardness of several 3D-printed resins to direct and indirect restorative materials.
Materials And Methods:
Four 3D-printed resins (C&B MFH, Ceramic Crown, OnX, and OnX Tough), one milled resin composite (Lava Ultimate), one conventional composite (Filtek Supreme), and one ceramic (IPS e.max CAD) were evaluated. Filler wt% was determined by the burned ash technique, and filler particle morphology and composition were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy, respectively. Organic resin composition was analyzed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Three-point bend flexural strength and modulus of the materials were determined by ISO 4049 or ISO 6872. Vickers microhardness was measured. Data were compared with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc analysis. Linear regression analysis was performed for filler wt% versus flexural strength, modulus, and hardness.
Results:
3D-printed resins were composed of various sized and shaped silica fillers and various types of methacrylate resins. Significant differences were found among filler wt% with some materials around 3% (C&B MFH), others between 33% and 38% (OnX Tough and OnX), others around 50% (Ceramic Crown), and some around 72% (Filtek Supreme and Lava Ultimate). All 3D-printed resins had significantly lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than the conventional and milled resin composites and ceramic material (p < 0.001). Filler wt% demonstrated a linear relationship with modulus (p = 0.013, R2 = 0.821) and hardness (p = 0.018, R2 = 0.787) but not flexural strength (p = 0.056, R2 = 0.551).
Conclusions:
3D-printed resins contain from 3% to 50% filler content. Filler wt% alone does not affect flexural strength, but strength may be affected by resin composition as well. Although the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than milled and conventional composite and ceramic, they demonstrated nonbrittle plastic behavior.
Clinical Significance:
The properties of 3D-printed resins vary based on their composition, which affects their clinical applications.
