Çakmak Gulce, Sabatini Gabriela Panca, de Paula Marcella Silva, Orgev Ahmet, Kahveci Çiğdem, Revilla-Léon Marta, Yilmaz Burak
Senior Research Associate, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Doctoral student, Department of Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil; and Buser Implant Foundation Scholar, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Mar;133(3):893-902. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.034. Epub 2024 Sep 5.
Printed casts and dental devices and prostheses are increasingly being used, and the ecological impact of additive manufacturing should be considered in addition to the fabrication accuracy and surface properties of the printed object. To overcome the ecological drawbacks of alcohol postprocessing, water-washable, 3-dimensionally (3D) printable cast resins and postprocessing cleaning solutions that do not include alcohol have been introduced. However, whether using only water rather than chemical solvents would enable the surface smoothness and hardness required for accurate diagnostic and prosthetic procedures is unknown.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of resin type (water-washable or nonwater washable) and postprocessing cleaning solution on the surface roughness and microhardness of 3D printed dental cast resins.
One hundred eight disk-shaped specimens (Ø10×2 mm) were additively manufactured (AM) from 3 dental cast resins: 2 water-washable (Epax (WW1) and Phrozen (WW2)) and 1 nonwater-washable resin (KeyModel Ultra resin-beige (NWW)) with a printer (n=36). Specimens in each resin type were divided into 3 groups for the application of postprocessing cleaning solution (water, 98% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] or methyl ether solvent) and polymerized after cleaning. The surface roughness (R, µm) and Vickers microhardness (HV) were measured. Laser microscope images were made of 1 specimen from each group.
NWW-IPA (control group) had a similar R to WW2-water (P=.81) and WW2-methyl ether solvent (P=.511). NWW-IPA had lower HV than WW2-water (P<.001) and WW1-methyl ether solvent (P=.001). Solutions had no significant effect on the R of WW1 (P≥.554) and WW2 (P≥.805). WW1 had higher surface irregularities with water, whereas no significant difference was visually observed with IPA or methyl ether solvent. Solutions had a similar effect on the surface of WW2 when evaluated visually with the laser microscope.
Resin type and postprocessing cleaning solution affected the surface roughness and microhardness of 3D printed dental cast resins, except for the surface roughness of tested water-washable resins. Water or methyl ether solvent cleaned water-washable resin (WW2) had surface roughness and hardness similar to commonly used nonwater-washable cast resin.
印刷铸型、牙科器械和假体的使用越来越广泛，除了印刷物体的制造精度和表面特性外，还应考虑增材制造的生态影响。为了克服酒精后处理的生态缺点，已经引入了可水洗的三维（3D）可打印铸型树脂和不包含酒精的后处理清洁溶液。然而，仅使用水而非化学溶剂是否能实现准确诊断和修复程序所需的表面光滑度和硬度尚不清楚。
本体外研究的目的是评估树脂类型（可水洗或不可水洗）和后处理清洁溶液对3D打印牙科铸型树脂表面粗糙度和显微硬度的影响。
用一台打印机从3种牙科铸型树脂中增材制造（AM）108个圆盘形试样（Ø10×2 mm）：2种可水洗树脂（Epax（WW1）和Phrozen（WW2））和1种不可水洗树脂（KeyModel Ultra树脂 - 米色（NWW））（n = 36）。每种树脂类型的试样分为3组，用于后处理清洁溶液（水、98%异丙醇[IPA]或甲基醚溶剂）的应用，并在清洁后进行聚合。测量表面粗糙度（R，μm）和维氏显微硬度（HV）。对每组中的1个试样制作激光显微镜图像。
NWW - IPA（对照组）的R与WW2 - 水（P = 0.81）和WW2 - 甲基醚溶剂（P = 0.511）相似。NWW - IPA的HV低于WW2 - 水（P < 0.001）和WW1 - 甲基醚溶剂（P = 0.001）。溶液对WW1（P≥0.554）和WW2（P≥0.805）的R没有显著影响。WW1用水处理时表面不规则性更高，而用IPA或甲基醚溶剂处理时在视觉上未观察到显著差异。用激光显微镜进行视觉评估时，溶液对WW2的表面有类似影响。
树脂类型和后处理清洁溶液会影响3D打印牙科铸型树脂的表面粗糙度和显微硬度，但测试的可水洗树脂的表面粗糙度除外。用水或甲基醚溶剂清洁的可水洗树脂（WW2）具有与常用的不可水洗铸型树脂相似的表面粗糙度和硬度。
