The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cellular responses to 3D printed dental resins produced using a manufacturer recommended printer versus a third party printer

  • Beatriz Sona Cardoso (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Unidade de Investigacao em Ciencias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB)) ;
  • Mariana Brito da Cruz (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Unidade de Investigacao em Ciencias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB)) ;
  • Joana Faria Marques (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Unidade de Investigacao em Ciencias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB)) ;
  • Joao Carlos Roque (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Unidade de Investigacao em Ciencias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB)) ;
  • Joao Paulo Martins (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Unidade de Investigacao em Ciencias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB)) ;
  • Rodrigo Cordeiro Malheiro (Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Departamento de Protese Dentaria - Laboratorio de Tecnologias Digitais - DIGITECH) ;
  • Antonio Duarte da Mata (Centro de Estudos de Medicina Dentaria Baseada na Evidencia (CEMDBE) Cochrane Portugal, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria, Universidade de Lisboa)
  • Received : 2023.12.06
  • Accepted : 2024.04.16
  • Published : 2024.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different 3D dental resins, using a manufacturer recommended printer and a third-party printer, on cellular responses of human gingival cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three NextDent resins (Denture 3D+, C&B MFH and Crowntec) were used to produce specimens on printers NextDent 5100 (groups ND, NC and NT, respectively) and Phrozen Sonic Mini 4K (groups PD, PC and PT, respectively). Human gingival fibroblasts were cultured and biocompatibility was evaluated on days 1, 3 and 7. IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations were evaluated at 3 days using ELISA. Surface roughness was evaluated by a contact profilometer. SEM and fluorescence micrographs were analyzed at days 1 and 7. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS and mean differences were tested using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (P < .05). RESULTS. There was an increase in cellular viability after 7 days in groups PC and PT, when compared to group PD. ND group resulted in higher concentration of IL-6 when compared to PT group. SEM and fluorescence micrographs showed less adhesion and thinner morphology of fibroblasts from group PD. No significant differences were found regarding surface roughness. CONCLUSION. The use of different printers or resins did not seem to influence surface roughness. NextDent 5100 and Phrozen Sonic Mini 4K produced resins with similar cellular responses in human gingival fibroblasts. However, Denture 3D+ resin resulted in significantly lower biocompatibility, when compared to C&B MFH and Crowntec resins. Further testing is required to support its long-term use, required for complete dentures.

Keywords

References

  1. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:559-70, ix.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
  2. da Silva Salomao GV, Chun EP, Panegaci RDS, Santos FT. Analysis of digital workflow in implantology. Case Rep Dent 2021;2021:6655908. 
  3. Wemken G, Burkhardt F, Spies BC, Kleinvogel L, Adali U, Sterzenbach G, Beuer F, Wesemann C. Bond strength of conventional, subtractive, and additive manufactured denture bases to soft and hard relining materials. Dent Mater 2021;37:928-38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.018
  4. Prpic V, Schauperl Z, Catic A, Dulcic N, Cimic S. Comparison of mechanical properties of 3D-printed, CAD/CAM, and conventional denture base materials. J Prosthodont 2020;29:524-8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13175
  5. Chappuis Chocano AP, Venante HS, Bringel da Costa RM, Pordeus MD, Santiago Junior JF, Porto VC. Evaluation of the clinical performance of dentures manufactured by computer-aided technology and conventional techniques: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:547-53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.029
  6. Anadioti E, Musharbash L, Blatz MB, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P. 3D printed complete removable dental prostheses: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:343. doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01328-8 
  7. Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12801
  8. Shim JS, Kim JE, Jeong SH, Choi YJ, Ryu JJ. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:468-75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034
  9. Kalberer N, Mehl A, Schimmel M, Muller F, Srinivasan M. CAD-CAM milled versus rapidly prototyped (3D-printed) complete dentures: An in vitro evaluation of trueness. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:637-43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.001
  10. Vilela Teixeira AB, Dos Reis AC. Influence of 3D-printing parameters and characteristics of complete denture bases on evaluated properties: a scoping review. Int J Prosthodont 2023;36:620-9. 
  11. Wagner SA, Kreyer R. Digitally fabricated removable complete denture clinical workflows using additive manufacturing techniques. J Prosthodont 2021;30:133-8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13318
  12. Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. 3D printing in digital prosthetic dentistry: an overview of recent developments in additive manufacturing. J Clin Med 2021;10:2010. 
  13. Anadioti E, Kane B, Zhang Y, Bergler M, Mante F, Blatz MB. Accuracy of dental and industrial 3D printers. J Prosthodont 2022;31:30-7. 
  14. Revilla-Leon M, Meyers MJ, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M. A review on chemical composition, mechanical properties, and manufacturing work flow of additively manufactured current polymers for interim dental restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31:51-7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12438
  15. Lo Russo L, Guida L, Zhurakivska K, Troiano G, Chochlidakis K, Ercoli C. Intaglio surface trueness of milled and 3D-printed digital maxillary and mandibular dentures: A clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:131-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.003
  16. Hwang HJ, Lee SJ, Park EJ, Yoon HI. Assessment of the trueness and tissue surface adaptation of CAD-CAM maxillary denture bases manufactured using digital light processing. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:110-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.018
  17. Yoon SN, Oh KC, Lee SJ, Han JS, Yoon HI. Tissue surface adaptation of CAD-CAM maxillary and mandibular complete denture bases manufactured by digital light processing: A clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:682-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.007
  18. Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. 3D printing in digital prosthetic dentistry: an overview of recent developments in additive manufacturing. J Clin Med 2021;10:2010. 
  19. Lemos CAA, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A, Rosa CDDRD, Luna Gomes JM, de Oliveira Limirio JPJ, Mendonca G, Pellizzer EP. Does the use of an adhesive improve conventional complete dentures? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:150-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.041
  20. Srinivasan M, Kamnoedboon P, McKenna G, Angst L, Schimmel M, Ozcan M, Muller F. CAD-CAM removable complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trueness of fit, biocompatibility, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, color stability, time-cost analysis, clinical and patient-reported outcomes. J Dent 2021;113:103777. 
  21. Srinivasan M, Kalberer N, Kamnoedboon P, Mekki M, Durual S, Ozcan M, Muller F. CAD-CAM complete denture resins: an evaluation of biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and surface characteristics. J Dent 2021;114:103785. 
  22. Cifuentes M, Davari P, Rogers RS 3rd. Contact stomatitis. Clin Dermatol 2017;35:435-40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2017.06.007
  23. Rashid H, Sheikh Z, Vohra F. Allergic effects of the residual monomer used in denture base acrylic resins. Eur J Dent 2015;9:614-9.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.172621
  24. Bieger V, Thieringer FM, Fischer J, Rohr N. Fibroblast behavior on conventionally processed, milled, and printed occlusal device materials with different surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:939-45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.015
  25. Srinivasan M, Chien EC, Kalberer N, Alambiaga Caravaca AM, Castelleno AL, Kamnoedboon P, Sauro S, Ozcan M, Muller F, Wismeijer D. Analysis of the residual monomer content in milled and 3D-printed removable CAD-CAM complete dentures: an in vitro study. J Dent 2022;120:104094. 
  26. Labban N, Song F, Al-Shibani N, Windsor LJ. Effects of provisional acrylic resins on gingival fibroblast cytokine/growth factor expression. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:390-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60242-5
  27. Wedekind L, Guth JF, Schweiger J, Kollmuss M, Reichl FX, Edelhoff D, Hogg C. Elution behavior of a 3D-printed, milled and conventional resin-based occlusal splint material. Dent Mater 2021;37:701-10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.01.024
  28. Burgers R, Schubert A, Muller J, Krohn S, Rodiger M, Leha A, Wassmann T. Cytotoxicity of 3D-printed, milled, and conventional oral splint resins to L929 cells and human gingival fibroblasts. Clin Exp Dent Res 2022;8:650-7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.592
  29. Guerrero-Girones J, Lopez-Garcia S, Pecci-Lloret MR, Pecci-Lloret MP, Rodriguez Lozano FJ, Garcia-Bernal D. In vitro biocompatibility testing of 3D printing and conventional resins for occlusal devices. J Dent 2022;123:104163. 
  30. Frasheri I, Aumer K, Kessler A, Miosge N, Folwaczny M. Effects of resin materials dedicated for additive manufacturing of temporary dental restorations on human gingival keratinocytes. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34:1105-12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12938
  31. Yaneva-Deliverska M, Deliversky J, Lyapina M. Biocompatibility of medical devices - legal regulations in the European union. J IMAB 2015;21:705-8.  https://doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2015211.705
  32. You SM, You SG, Lee BI, Kim JH. Evaluation of trueness in a denture base fabricated by using CAD-CAM systems and adaptation to the socketed surface of denture base: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127:108-14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.027
  33. Rogers HB, Zhou LT, Kusuhara A, Zaniker E, Shafaie S, Owen BC, Duncan FE, Woodruff TK. Dental resins used in 3D printing technologies release ovo-toxic leachates. Chemosphere 2021;270:129003. 
  34. Borelli B, Zarone F, Rivieccio V, Riccitiello F, Simeone M, Sorrentino R, Rengo S, Spagnuolo G, Procino A. Polyacrylic resins regulate transcriptional control of interleukin-6, gp80, and gp130 genes in human gingival fibroblasts. J Oral Sci 2017;59:87-91.  https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.16-0388
  35. Trubiani O, Toniato E, Di Iorio D, Diomede F, Merciaro I, D' Arcangelo C, Caputi S. Morphological analysis and interleukin release in human gingival fibroblasts seeded on different denture base acrylic resins. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2012;25:637-43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/039463201202500310
  36. Wuersching SN, Hickel R, Edelhoff D, Kollmuss M. Initial biocompatibility of novel resins for 3D printed fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater 2022;38:1587-97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.08.001
  37. Popal M, Volk J, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W. Cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of the type I photoinitiators BAPO and TPO on human oral keratinocytes and V79 fibroblasts. Dent Mater 2018;34:1783-96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.015
  38. Van Landuyt KL, Krifka S, Hiller KA, Bolay C, Waha C, Van Meerbeek B, Schmalz G, Schweikl H. Evaluation of cell responses toward adhesives with different photoinitiating systems. Dent Mater 2015;31:916-27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.04.016
  39. Bieger V, Thieringer FM, Fischer J, Rohr N. Fibroblast behavior on conventionally processed, milled, and printed occlusal device materials with different surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:939-45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.015
  40. Rohr N, Bertschinger N, Fischer J, Filippi A, Zitzmann NU. Influence of material and surface roughness of resin composite cements on fibroblast behavior. Oper Dent 2020;45:528-36.  https://doi.org/10.2341/19-113-L
  41. Duzyol M, Bayram P, Duzyol E, Aksak Karamese S. Assessing the impact of dental restorative materials on fibroblast cells: an immunohistochemical and ELISA analysis. Sci Rep 2024;14:4725. 
  42. Al-Dwairi ZN, Al Haj Ebrahim AA, Baba NZ. A comparison of the surface and mechanical properties of 3D Printable denture-base resin material and conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J Prosthodont 2023;32:40-8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13491
  43. Atria PJ, Bordin D, Marti F, Nayak VV, Conejo J, Benalcazar Jalkh E, Witek L, Sampaio CS. 3D-printed resins for provisional dental restorations: Comparison of mechanical and biological properties. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022;34:804-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12888