Chemical Composition, Knoop Hardness, Surface Roughness, and Adhesion Aspects of Additively Manufactured Dental Interim Materials.

PURPOSE

To measure the chemical composition, Knoop hardness, surface roughness, and composite bond strength of additive manufactured (AM) and conventional interim materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Disks were prepared using conventionally (CNV group) and additively manufactured (AM group) materials: CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE), CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent), AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400 C&B MFH; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B MFH; 3D Systems), and AM-4 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups (n = 20) for analyzing Knoop hardness (KHN), chemical composition, superficial roughness (Ra), and composite shear bond strength. The first subgroup was exposed to a microhardness test. Subsequently, EDAX analysis was selected to analyze the chemical composition. The second subgroup was selected to measure the superficial roughness (Ra) using a contact profilometer. The third subgroup was used to measured composite shear bond strength using a universal testing apparatus. A digital microscope was used to analyze the fracture mode. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed normally distributed data. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Sidak tests were selected (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Major variances in chemical composition were observed among the specimens. Significant differences in Knoop hardness (p < 0.001) and surface roughness (p < 0.001) were detected. The AM-4 (13.45 ± 2.93 KHN), the CNV-2 (13.35 ± 5.84 KHN), the AM-2 (13.03 ± 3.29 KHN), and the AM-1 (12.55 ± 2.93 KHN) groups obtained the highest Knoop hardness values, followed by the AM-3 and the CNV-1 groups (p < 0.05). The AM-1 group (1.88 ± 1.11 Ra) obtained the highest surface roughness values among the groups, followed by the AM-3 group (0.90 ± 0.14 Ra) (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences in shear bond strength values were found between the groups ranging from 23.18 ± 8.88 MPa to 33.29 ± 9.17 MPa (p = 0.061). All the groups showed a cohesive mode of failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The AM interim materials tested had significant chemical composition variations compared to conventional materials. For the mechanical properties evaluated, the AM materials obtained appropriate mechanical properties for use as an interim dental restoration. However, further studies are required to evaluate more extensively its mechanical properties and verify their applicability in the oral cavity, clinical behavior, and biocompatibility.