Effect of smokeless tobacco on color stability and surface roughness of CAD/CAM milled, 3D printed, and conventional provisional crown and fixed dental prosthesis materials: An in vitro study.

BACKGROUND

Provisional fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) plays an important role during fixed prosthodontic therapy till the definitive. Discoloration of materials used for provisional FDPs can cause patient dissatisfaction and may create doubt about the color stability of the definitive FDP. Surface roughness is the other major property to be taken into consideration for provisional FDP materials. Smokeless tobacco is reported to affect the color stability and surface roughness of different prosthetic materials.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of two types of smokeless tobacco (black and white) on color stability and surface roughness of 3D printed, CAD/CAM milled, and conventional provisional FDP resin materials.

METHODS

A total of 144 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated using four techniques CAD/CAM subtractive technique (milling), CAD/CAM additive technique (3D Printing), and conventional technique using autopolymerized PMMA, and autopolymerized Bis-acrylic resins. Each group was subdivided into three subgroups of twelve specimens each, and were submerged into three solutions (artificial salivary substitute, black smokeless tobacco, white smokeless tobacco). The change in color and surface roughness was evaluated and the data collected were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

It was observed that black smokeless tobacco caused the maximum color change and the effect was highest in autopolymerized PMMA resin specimens (ΔE = 9.343 ± 0.489), followed by 3D printed (ΔE = 7.187 ± 0.391), autopolymerized Bis-acryl (ΔE = 6.464 ± 0.453) and milled (ΔE = 4.978 ± 0.227). White smokeless tobacco was found to cause a maximum change in surface roughness and the effect was highest in autopolymerized Bis-acryl specimens (ΔRa = 0.321 ± 0.015 μm), followed by autopolymerized PMMA (ΔRa = 0.297± 0.015 μm), 3D printed (ΔRa = 0.191 ± 0.019 μm), and milled (ΔRa = 0.168 ± 0.014 μm). Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) differences were observed among all techniques and solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The change in color and surface roughness were maximum in the case of FDPs prepared using autopolymerizing resins, followed by 3D printed, and CAD/CAM milled reins.