Flexural properties and fatigue limit of 3D-printed and milled resin-based materials.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), and fatigue limit (FL) of 3D-printed resin-based polymers and composites and compare them to 3D-printed composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bar-shaped specimen (25 × 2 × 2 mm) was CAD designed according to ISO 40492019, and 60 duplicates of the 3D model were nested at a 45-degree angle with the printing platform and 3D-printed with three materials denture teeth resin (Denture Teeth, Formlabs), temporary crown and bridge resin (Temporary CB, Formlabs), and composite (Flexcera Smile Ultra+, Desktop Health). The 3D model was also imported into a dental CAM software, duplicated 60 times, nested, and milled from a 3D-milled composite puck (Ivotion Denture Teeth, Ivoclar). All specimens were post-processed following the manufacturer's recommendation. The specimens were then subjected to a three-point bending test until failure using a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min, and FS and FM were calculated. The remaining thirty specimens were tested for Fatigue Limit using the staircase approach starting at 50% FS maximum up to 1.2 M cycles at 10 Hz. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Weibull distribution (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The results showed that Ivotion and Flexcera had higher FS (110.3 ± 7.1 MPa and 107.6 ± 6.4 MPa, respectively) and FM (3.3 ± 0.1 GPa and 3.0 ± 0.2 GPa, respectively) compared to the 3D-printed Denture Teeth (FS = 66.4 ± 18.5 MPa and FM = 1.8 ± 0.1 GPa) and Temporary CB (FS = 79.6 ± 12.1 MPa and FM = 2.7 ± 0.4 GPa). Weibull analysis showed that the Ivotion and Flexcera had a more uniform and narrower spatial distribution of defects (m 27.98 and 29.19) than the printed materials, which had m values of 8.17 and 4.11 for Temporary CB and Denture Teeth, respectively. Although no differences were found in the static properties (FS and FM) between Ivotion and Flexcera, Ivotion presented a higher endurance limit than Flexcera (51.43 vs. 40.95 MPa). The Temporary CB presented 21.08 MPa and Denture Teeth presented 17.80 MPa of endurance limit. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-milled (Ivotion Denture Teeth) and 3D-printed (Flexcera Smile Ultra+) composites outperformed 3D-printed resins (Formlabs Denture Teeth and Temporary Crown & Bridge) in terms of flexural properties and fatigue resistance. 3D-milled (Ivotion) and 3D-printed (Flexcera) composites exhibited similar flexural properties, but 3D-milled composites showed a 25% higher fatigue endurance limit, suggesting improved clinical longevity.