Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026
07:42
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
697
Radiopacity Evaluation of 3D Printed Permanent Crown Restoration Materials
Elif Çelebi1, Berkman Albayrak2, Yeşim Ölçer Us3
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dental Medicine, Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Australian Dental Journal
|November 21, 2025
Summary
Three 3D printing resins for permanent crowns showed insufficient radiopacity, potentially hindering diagnosis in thin restorations. Duraprint exhibited the lowest radiopacity, making tissue and caries differentiation difficult.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Biomaterials Engineering
- Radiology
Background:
- 3D printing resins are increasingly used for permanent dental crowns.
- Assessing the radiopacity of these materials is crucial for clinical diagnosis.
- Existing resins may not meet diagnostic imaging standards.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the radiopacity of three commercial 3D printing resins used for permanent crowns.
- To determine if these materials meet diagnostic requirements for dental restorations.
- To analyze the effect of material thickness on radiopacity.
Main Methods:
- Three resins (Saremco Print Crowntec, VarseoSmile Crown Plus, Duraprint) were printed at 0.5, 1, and 1.5 mm thicknesses.
- Radiographs were captured using a standardized protocol and compared to tooth sections and an aluminum step wedge.
- Image analysis (ImageJ) quantified radiopacity in mm Al, with statistical analysis (ANOVA, Tukey HSD) at p=0.05.
Main Results:
- All tested resins exhibited significantly lower radiopacity than enamel (2.30 ± 0.07 mm Al).
- Most resins showed significantly lower radiopacity than dentin (1.27 ± 0.08 mm Al), except for 1.5 mm thick Saremco Print Crowntec and VarseoSmile Crown Plus.
- Duraprint demonstrated the lowest radiopacity across all thicknesses, with no significant variation.
Conclusions:
- The evaluated 3D printing resins may lack sufficient radiopacity for reliable clinical assessment, especially in thinner crown applications.
- Duraprint's low radiopacity poses a diagnostic challenge, potentially obscuring the differentiation between the restoration, natural tooth tissues, and caries.
- Further development of radiopaque 3D printing materials is recommended for improved diagnostic capabilities in restorative dentistry.
