Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 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 tooth fracture load between different conventional and CAD-CAM denture base materials
Eman Al Kaba1, Amal Alfaraj2, Tien-Min G Chu3
1Center for Implant, Esthetic and Innovative Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Purpose:
To assess the fracture load at the tooth-denture base interface in dentures fabricated using three different production methods: compression mold, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) milled (monolithic and bonded), and 3D- printed dentures (monolithic and bonded).
Materials And Methods:
Seven groups (n = 10/group) were fabricated using a standardized segmented digital denture design that included tooth #8. Fabrication techniques included conventional compression molding, single, two-disc milling or with bonded tooth designs, and 3D printing monolithic or with bonded tooth designs, utilizing either prefabricated, milled, or 3D-printed teeth. Specimens were embedded in cylindrical molds exposing 2 mm of the denture base and subjected to fracture load testing. Failure modes were analyzed via scanning electron microscopy and classified as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. One-way analysis of variance with Fisher's LSD was used to compare fracture loads among groups.
Results:
Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in fracture load among the seven denture fabrication methods (p < 0.001). The monolithic milled group demonstrated the highest fracture load (504.7 ± 76 N) and reliability, as confirmed by Weibull analysis. Both 3D-printed denture bases with bonded teeth groups also showed high fracture load values (361.2 ± 0.4 and 348.7 ± 0.8 N, respectively), outperforming the conventional group (p < 0.001, p = 0.002). Milled base with bonded milled tooth and monolithic print exhibited moderate fracture load. In contrast, compression-molded and milled base with bonded prefabricated tooth exhibited the lowest fracture load (251.7 ± 69.6 and 232.8 ± 47.7 N, respectively). Fracture modes varied, with cohesive failures more evident in stronger groups and adhesive or mixed failures in weaker ones.
Conclusion:
Denture fabrication method had a significant effect on tooth-base fracture load. Monolithic CAD-CAM-milled denture outperformed all other groups in denture teeth fracture load. 3D-printed techniques with optimized bonding also achieved high fracture load exceeding conventional compression-molded dentures.
