Impact of surface roughness and wettability on microbial adhesion of temporary prostheses made by additive, subtractive, and conventional methods

Zeynep Sahin ¹, Nazire Esra Ozer ¹, Abdulhamit Calı ²

⁰Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Lokman Hekim University, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.

European Journal of Oral Sciences +

|

June 26, 2025

View abstract on PubMed

Summary

3D-printed temporary prostheses show higher microbial adhesion than conventional ones. This suggests 3Dresins may increase infection risk, necessitating further research into material properties and microbial colonization.

Area Of Science

Biomaterials Science
Microbiology
Dental Materials

Background

The increasing use of 3D-printed temporary prostheses highlights a gap in understanding microbial adhesion to these devices.
Microbial colonization on prostheses can lead to biomaterial-associated infections.

Purpose Of The Study

To evaluate and compare the surface properties and microbial adhesion of conventional and digitally fabricated temporary prosthesis materials.
To investigate the relationship between surface characteristics (roughness, contact angle) and microbial adhesion.

Main Methods

Four materials were tested: poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA), bis-acryl composite (BA), CAD/CAM milled poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), and 3D-printed difunctional methacrylate resin (3Dresin).
Surface roughness, contact angle, and microbial adhesion (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans) were assessed.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used for visual analysis.

Main Results

Bis-acryl composite (BA) exhibited the highest surface roughness, while BA and PEMA showed higher contact angles than PMMA and 3Dresin.
Staphylococcus aureus demonstrated the highest adhesion across all tested materials.
Surprisingly, 3Dresin showed the highest microbial adhesion despite its low surface roughness; no significant correlation was found between microbial counts and surface roughness or contact angle.

Conclusions

Conventionally produced materials (PEMA, BA) are more hydrophobic than digitally fabricated ones (PMMA, 3Dresin).
3D-printed resins (3Dresin) may present a higher risk for microbial colonization and subsequent infections.
Further research is needed to mitigate microbial adhesion on 3D-printed biomaterials.

Keywords:

digital materials hydrophobicity surface properties temporary materials