Evaluation of a 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composite versus a milled resin composite for flexural strength, wear and color stability
Abstract Background Controversial properties and performance of commercially available 3D-printed resin composite for permanent restorations. So, the purpose of this study was to assess the flexural strength, microhardness, wear, and color stability of 3D-printed versus milled nanohybrid resin compo...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-04-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05861-2 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Background Controversial properties and performance of commercially available 3D-printed resin composite for permanent restorations. So, the purpose of this study was to assess the flexural strength, microhardness, wear, and color stability of 3D-printed versus milled nanohybrid resin composites for permanent restoration. Methods A total of 70 samples of nanohybrid resin composites were used; 38 bar-shaped (14 mm ⋅ 2 mm ⋅ 2 mm) and 32 disc-shaped samples (10 mm ⋅ 2 mm) of Tetric CAD™ blocks (TC) and Flexcera Smile Ultra plus™ (FSU) were fabricated (n = 35). Flexural properties were tested using 3-point bending test. The Vickers test was used for microhardness evaluation. Volumetric wear analysis and color changes were assessed after simulated aging via Geomagic Control X software and a Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer, respectively. Color changes were calculated via the CIEDE2000 formula. A paired t-test was used for dependent variable analysis, and the Mann‒Whitney U test was used for independent variables (α = 0.05). Results TC resulted in significantly higher flexural strength (247.7 ± 29.1 MPa) and microhardness (94.6 ± 3 gf/um2) than did FSU (97.2 ± 10.2 MPa and 31 ± 4.6 gf/um2, respectively) (P < 0.0001). Compared with FSU (–36.3 mm3), TC resulted in significantly lower wear rates (–17.6 mm3)(P < 0.0001). TC had a ΔE00 value of 2.4 ± 0.5, whereas FSU had a value of 2.1 ± 0.7 (P = 0.532), with no significant difference between the groups, but both values were above the acceptability limit (1.8). Conclusions Compared with 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composites, milled nanohybrid resin composites have better flexural strength, microhardness and wear properties. Clinical relevance Milled nanohybrid resin composites exhibit superior flexural strength, microhardness, and wear resistance, making them potentially more durable for clinical dental restorations compared to 3D-printed nanohybrid resin composites. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1472-6831 |