Repair strength of 3D‐printed denture base resins: Effect of surface treatment and repair material type

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of surface treatment and repair materials on the flexural strength of repaired 3D‐printed denture base resins after thermal aging.Materials and methodsBar‐shape specimens (64 × 10 × 3.3 mm) were designed as intact (control) specimens while repair specimens were printed in sections with 2.5 mm space for repair material. Printing was performed with either ASIGA or NextDent denture base material. In each material, one group received no surface treatment, while other repair groups were subjected to one of three surface treatments: (1) monomer application, (2) aluminium oxide particles‐abrasion, or (3) both methods (aluminum oxide particles‐abrasion and monomer application). Pairs were fixed in a customized mold then repaired with either autopolymerizing acrylic resin or flowable composite (n = 9). Repaired specimens were incubated for 48 h at 37°C in distilled water and then subjected to thermal cycling (5000 cycles). A 3‐point bending test was used to evaluate the flexural strength using a universal testing machine, and mode of failure determined followed by fractured surface analysis using scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (α = 0.05).ResultsBoth resin materials showed a significant decrease in the flexural strength of repaired specimens when compared to control ones (p < 0.001). Groups with no surface treatment had significantly lower flexural strength than those with surface treatment (p < 0.001). Groups treated with monomer application, and with aluminum oxide particles abrasion plus monomer application had similar flexural strength values (p > 0.05), which were higher than those treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone (p < 0.001). Specimens repaired with composite resin showed higher flexural strength than those repaired with auto‐polymerized resin (p < 0.05) however, specimens treated with aluminum oxide particles abrasion alone had similar values for both repair materials (p = 0.95). Adhesive failure was dominant in all repaired groups with auto‐polymerized while cohesive and mixed were dominant with composite repair groups.ConclusionSurface treatment improved the repair strength of 3D‐printed denture base resins. Using composite resin for repair shows better strength with dominant cohesive and mixed failure suggesting that surface treatment and composite repair are suitable procedures for 3D‐printed denture base repair.