Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026

Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation
Published on: July 21, 2014
Comparative laboratory study of 3D printed denture base resin materials
Ioli Ioanna Artopoulou1, Eleftheria Pani2, George Eliades3
1Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; and f. Fellow, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX.
Statement Of Problem:
Several 3-dimensionally (3D) printed denture base resin materials designed for removable dentures and maxillofacial prostheses have recently been introduced, but studies on their properties are lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the degree of conversion (DC%), Vickers hardness (VHN), crosslinking density (CD), tensile strength (TS), surface roughness (SR), and wettability (W) of two 3D printed denture base materials in comparison with a heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) control.
Material And Methods:
Disk- (Ø15×3 mm) and dumbbell-shaped (International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 527-1 standard) specimens of two 3D printed denture base materials (V Print-dentbase) and (Optiprint Laviva) were printed, and PMMA specimens (Acrypol fast) were used as the control. DC% (n=5) was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy, VHN and CD (n=10) with a Vickers hardness tester, and TS (including modulus of elasticity-E and elongation-e, n=10) using a universal testing machine. SR parameters (Sa, Sq, Sz, Sdr, Sc, Sv, n=10) were measured with an optical profiler and water contact angles (θ) (apparent/θm and Young/θy, n=10) with a contact angle goniometer. Data were analyzed with t tests, the Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test, and 1-way ANOVA (α=.05).
Results:
For DC%, the control was greater than the VP-dentbase (P<.05), with the other groups being statistically similar (P>.05). For VHN, the ranking was OP>VP and AF. Differences in CD were not significant. For TS and E the ranking was VP, AF>OP, with differences between VP and AF not significant. ε was zero for all materials. For SR parameters, the ranking was OP
Conclusions:
The different chemical compositions of the 3DPs resulted in significant differences in some of the tested properties.
More Related Videos
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
03:02Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
Published on: January 17, 2025