Comparative analysis of the physicochemical properties of 3D-Printed and conventional resins for temporary dental restorations

Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of two resins used for provisional prostheses: a direct self-curing dimethacrylate resin and a 3D-printed resin, in order to assess their potential for different clinical applications. Methods. Flexural s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Authors: Valencia Blanco, Óscar Javier|||0009-0000-5627-7779, Pérez Pevida, Esteban, Robles Cantero, Daniel, Montalvillo, Enrique, Gil Mur, Francisco Javier|||0000-0002-6824-1412, Brizuela Velasco, Aritza
Format: article
Publication Date:2025
Country:España
Institution:Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Repository:UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC
Language:English
OAI Identifier:oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/448786
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/2117/448786
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis7050129
Access Level:Open access
Keyword:3D printing
3D resin
Self-curing
Provisionals
Flexural strength
Water absorption
Wear resistance
Scratch resistance
Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria dels materials::Materials plàstics i polímers
Description
Summary:Objective. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of two resins used for provisional prostheses: a direct self-curing dimethacrylate resin and a 3D-printed resin, in order to assess their potential for different clinical applications. Methods. Flexural strength, microhardness, wear resistance, and water absorption were evaluated in accordance with ISO 4049 and ISO 10477. Samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, X-ray spectroscopy, and mechanical testing, including flexural, wear, and scratch assays. Results. The 3D-printed resin demonstrated superior flexural strength (128 ± 2 MPa vs. 127 ± 16 MPa), microhardness (19.45 HV vs. 8.10 HV, p < 0.05), and wear resistance (mean wear area: 0.030 mm2 vs. 0.047 mm2) compared to the self-curing dimethacrylate composite. However, it exhibited significantly higher water absorption (55.98 µg/mm3 vs. 15.0 µg/mm3), which may compromise its long-term durability in humid environments. Conclusions. Overall, the 3D-printed resin shows promising mechanical performance, but its high-water absorption remains a limitation for extended use. Further studies are required to evaluate its degradation and behavior under intraoral conditions. Clinical relevance. For the time being, self-curing resins remain the preferred choice for long-term provisional prostheses.