Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 26, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparison of physico-mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins used as permanent indirect restoration materials
1Ordu University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ordu, Turkey.
Objective:
To compare the physico-mechanical properties (microhardness, surface roughness, and flexural strength) of permanent 3D-printed dental resins with those of a resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and a composite resin.
Methods:
Four groups were tested: composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM block (Cerasmart), and two 3D-printed resins (Saremco Crowntec, VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Disk- and bar-shaped specimens were prepared according to ISO standards. Microhardness (Vickers test), surface roughness (profilometer), and flexural strength (three-point bending test) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (p < 0.05).
Results:
Cerasmart showed the highest microhardness (85.53 ± 3.97) and flexural strength (184.45 ± 9.42), while Saremco Crowntec exhibited the lowest microhardness (38.63 ± 2.14). Clearfil Majesty had the highest surface roughness (1.24 ± 0.35). Although the measured flexural strength values of 3D-printed resins exceeded the ISO 4049 minimum threshold, several samples were close to or below the limit.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, 3D-printed permanent resins exhibited mechanical properties comparable to conventional restorative materials in certain parameters, although inferior hardness values were observed compared to CAD/CAM blocks. Nevertheless, the present findings should be interpreted with caution, and further long-term clinical investigations are necessary before translating these results into clinical practice.
