A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D-printing), subtractive (milling), and conventional techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D-printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD-Temp, (milled/ML), and (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self-cured/CC). Each group consisted of 20 beam-shaped specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) used for a three-point flexural strength test and 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: 2 mm) used for surface roughness, gloss, degree of conversion, and hardness measurements. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The ranking of the statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), ML >CC > 3DP (gloss) and ML > 3DP> CC (gloss, degree of conversion, hardness and flexural strength).

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The tested materials showed statistically significant differences in all tested properties. These differences may affect their clinical performance and should be taken into consideration for their clinical application.