Rojas-Rueda Silvia, Alsahafi Tariq Aziz, Hammamy Mohammed, Surathu Neeraj, Surathu Nitish, Lawson Nathaniel C, Sulaiman Taiseer A
Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35209, USA.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Materials (Basel). 2025 Jul 14;18(14):3308. doi: 10.3390/ma18143308.
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and gloss-both initially and after simulated toothbrushing-of three 3D-printed crown materials subjected to different surface treatments: varnishing, polishing with diamond-impregnated rubber polishers, and polishing with a bristle brush and paste. Disc-shaped specimens (n = 90) were 3D-printed using three commercially available crown resins (Rodin Sculpture, VarseoSmile TriniQ, and OnX Tough 2) and post-processed per manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were divided into three surface treatment groups: application of a light-cured varnish, polishing with a two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher, or polishing with a bristle brush and abrasive paste. Surface roughness and gloss were measured after treatment and again following 20,000 cycles of simulated toothbrushing. Additional specimens were prepared for Vickers microhardness testing and determination of filler weight percentage (wt%). Statistical comparisons were performed using two-way ANOVA with significance set at < 0.05. Results: The varnish provided the statistically lowest roughness of all surface treatments for all materials. The bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol produced the greatest gloss for the softest material (VarseoSmile TriniQ) and lowest gloss for the hardest material (Rodin Sculpture), whereas the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced an equivalent gloss on all materials. Following toothbrushing, roughness was minimally affected; however, gloss was considerably reduced. Conclusions: All tested polishing and varnishing methods achieved clinically acceptable surface roughness (Ra < 0.2 µm) that persisted after simulated toothbrushing. Notably, the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced consistent gloss across all materials, while the bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol performed better on softer materials, and varnish application resulted in equal or superior gloss and roughness retention compared to polishing.
本研究的目的是评估和比较三种经过不同表面处理的3D打印牙冠材料在初始状态以及模拟刷牙后的表面粗糙度和光泽度，这些表面处理包括：涂清漆、用含金刚石的橡胶抛光器抛光以及用刷毛牙刷和牙膏抛光。使用三种市售牙冠树脂（罗丹雕塑树脂、VarseoSmile TriniQ树脂和OnX Tough 2树脂）3D打印圆盘形试样（n = 90），并按照制造商的说明进行后处理。试样分为三个表面处理组：涂覆光固化清漆、用两步含金刚石的橡胶抛光器抛光或用刷毛牙刷和研磨膏抛光。处理后以及在20,000次模拟刷牙循环后再次测量表面粗糙度和光泽度。制备额外的试样用于维氏显微硬度测试和填料重量百分比（wt%）的测定。使用双向方差分析进行统计比较，显著性设定为<0.05。结果：对于所有材料，清漆在所有表面处理中提供了统计学上最低的粗糙度。刷毛牙刷和研磨膏抛光方案为最软的材料（VarseoSmile TriniQ）产生了最大的光泽度，为最硬的材料（罗丹雕塑树脂）产生了最低的光泽度，而两步含金刚石的橡胶抛光器在所有材料上产生了相当的光泽度。刷牙后，粗糙度受到的影响最小；然而，光泽度显著降低。结论：所有测试的抛光和涂漆方法都达到了临床可接受的表面粗糙度（Ra < 0.2 µm），并且在模拟刷牙后仍然保持。值得注意的是，两步含金刚石的橡胶抛光器在所有材料上产生了一致的光泽度，而刷毛牙刷和研磨膏抛光方案在较软的材料上表现更好，并且与抛光相比，涂清漆导致了同等或更好的光泽度和粗糙度保持。
