Aim
Various forms of temporary resins are offered on the market; however, the properties of temporary resins obtained by milling and 3D printing have not been fully examined. This study aimed to compare the flexural strength and Vickers hardness of milled and 3D-printed resins.
Methods
Three resins were tested: Evolux PMMA (milled resin), Cosmos Temp (3D-printed resin), and Structur 2 SC (bis-acrylic resin, group control). Specimens were prepared with rectangular shapes (n = 12) for flexural strength measurements and disc shapes (n = 9) for Vickers hardness tests. Flexural strength tests were performed at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min, and the Vickers hardness was measured under a load of 20 N for 10 s. The obtained data were subjected to the Kruskal–Wallis test.
Results
A significant difference (p < 0.05) in flexural strength was observed among the three sample groups: Evolux PMMA (111.76 MPa), Structur 2 SC (87.34 MPa), and Cosmos Temp (56.83 MPa). No significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between the Vickers hardness values of Structur 2 SC (33.37 VHN) and Evolux PMMA (29.11 VHN); however, both materials were statistically superior to Cosmos Temp (10.90 VHN).
Conclusion
While the mechanical properties of the milled resin were superior or similar to those of the bis-acrylic resin, the 3D-printed resin was statistically inferior to both the milled and bis-acrylic resins.
Dental restoration, temporary; Flexural strength; Hardness tests; Computer-aided design