Comparing 3D-printed, milled, conventional restorative materials

Researchers found statistically significant differences in mechanical, chemical and surface properties among three restorative materials manufactured through varying means.

The materials, used for provisional restorations, were manufactured through 3D printing, milling and conventional self-curing techniques. The researchers tested their surface roughness, gloss, flexural strength, degree of conversion and hardness.

The 3D-printed material performed best in the surface roughness test, followed by the conventional material and then the milled material. The milled material performed best in the gloss test, followed by the conventional material and then the 3D-printed material. The milled material also showed the highest values in flexural strength, degree of conversion and hardness, followed by the 3D-printed and conventional materials.

“These differences may affect their clinical performance and should be taken into consideration for their clinical application,” the researchers said in the study, published in the Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry.

Read more: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

The article presented here is intended to inform you about the broader media perspective on dentistry, regardless of its alignment with the ADA's stance. It is important to note that publication of an article does not imply the ADA's endorsement, agreement, or promotion of its content.