Evaluating mechanical and surface properties of zirconia-containing composites: 3D printing, subtractive, and...

This study assessed the monotonic and fatigue flexural strength (FS), elastic modulus (E), and surface characteristics of a 3D printed zirconia-containing resin composite compared to subtractive and conventional layering methods. Specimens, including discs (n = 15; Ø = 15 mm × 1.2 mm) and bars (n = 15; 14 × 4 × 1.2 mm), were prepared and categorized into three groups: 3D printing (3D printing - PriZma 3D Bio Crown, Makertech), Subtractive (Lava Ultimate blocks, 3M), and Layering (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M). Monotonic tests were performed on the discs using a piston-on-three-balls setup, while fatigue tests employed similar parameters with a frequency of 10 Hz, initial stress at 20 MPa, and stress increments every 5000 cycles. The E was determined through three-point-bending test using bars. Surface roughness, fractographic, and topographic analyses were conducted. Statistical analyses included One-way ANOVA for monotonic FS and roughness, Kruskal-Wallis for E, and Kaplan-Meier with post-hoc Mantel-Cox and Weibull analysis for fatigue strength. Results revealed higher monotonic strength in the Subtractive group compared to 3D printing (p = 0.02) and Layering (p = 0.04), while 3D Printing and Layering exhibited similarities (p = 0.88). Fatigue data indicated significant differences across all groups (3D Printing < Layering < Subtractive; p = 0.00 and p = 0.04, respectively). Mechanical reliability was comparable across groups. 3D printing and Subtractive demonstrated similar E, both surpassing Layering. Moreover, 3D printing exhibited higher surface roughness than Subtractive and Layering (p < 0.05). Fractographic analysis indicated that fractures initiated at surface defects located in the area subjected to tensile stress concentration. A porous surface was observed in the 3D Printing group and a more compact surface in Subtractive and Layering methods. This study distinguishes the unique properties of 3D printed resin when compared to conventional layering and subtractive methods for resin-based materials. 3D printed shows comparable monotonic strength to layering but lags behind in fatigue strength, with subtractive resin demonstrating superior performance. Both 3D printed and subtractive exhibit similar elastic moduli, surpassing layering. However, 3D printed resin displays higher surface roughness compared to subtractive and layering methods. The study suggests a need for improvement in the mechanical performance of 3D printed material.