ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessing the impact of surface treatment, aging, and post-curing conditions on the water sorption and solubility of 3D-printed denture base resins compared to conventional and milled alternatives.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Polishing, Resin Coating, and Glaze Coating on the Surface Properties of a 3D-Printed Splint Resin.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Article
- Toothbrush Resistance of Resin-Based Stain and Glaze Materials Applied to 3D-Printed Denture Resins.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Review of Current Systems, Materials, and Protocols for 3D-Printed Splints, Crowns, and Dentures.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Surface Characteristics and Hydrolytic Stability in Milled and 3D-Printed PMMA Dental Materials.Polymers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh water sorption and solubility in total denture base materials are primary factors contributing to prosthetic failure, as they compromise both mechanical and aesthetic properties. This study investigated how three distinct surface treatments, varying aging protocols, and different curing parameters collectively influence the water sorption (Wsp) and solubility (Wsl) of 3D-printed denture base materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study evaluated the water sorption and solubility of 420 disc-shaped specimens (Ø15 × 2 ± 0,2 mm) fabricated from one conventional heat-cured acrylic resin (Probase; HC), one CAD-CAM Prepolymerized PMMA block (Bilkim; M), and one 3D-printed denture base material (Formlabs; 3DP ). All groups underwent three distinct surface treatments (mechanical polishing, Optiglaze, or Vita Akzent Glaze). The 3D-printed specimens were additionally subjected to four curing durations (10, 15, 30, 60 min) and two curing atmospheres (air and glycerin). Water sorption (Wsp) and solubility (Wsl) were assessed after three distinct aging protocols: 7 days of immersion in distilled water (Wsp-DW and Wsl-DW), 6 days of immersion in a denture cleaner (Wsp-DC and Wsl-DC), and 2000 thermocycles (Wsp-TC and Wsl-TC). Statistical analysis was conducted using non-parametric tests, as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the data were not normally distributed (p < 0.05). The Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparisons between two categorical variables, while the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for three or more categories. For related groups, the Friedman test was employed. Pairwise comparisons were performed to identify specific differences among groups. All statistical analyses were conducted with significance levels set at α = 0.05 and 0.01.
resultsThis study demonstrates that both manufacturing technology and surface treatment significantly influence the water sorption and solubility of dental acrylics. Conventional heat-polymerized acrylics exhibited the highest water sorption, whereas 3D-printed materials consistently showed the lowest (p < 0.01). Regarding solubility, heat-cured materials generally displayed the lowest values. Conversely, 3D-printed materials had the highest Wsl-DW and Wsl-TC, but the lowest Wsl-DC (p < 0.01). Glaze application effectively reduced both water sorption and solubility across all groups compared to mechanical polishing. Lastly, while glycerin curing of 3D-printed resins led to higher sorption but lower solubility, curing duration generally had no significant impact, with some 10-minute cured groups occasionally showing higher solubility (p < 0.01).
conclusionAll 3D-printed groups, irrespective of surface treatment or curing parameters, demonstrated water sorption (Wsp) and solubility (Wsl) values within the limits defined by ISO 4049 - 2019 (Wsp < 40 µg/mm³; Wsl < 7.5 µg/mm³). While glaze application effectively reduces these properties, adequate curing time and the use of a glycerin curing medium can similarly diminish solubility. However, curing duration was not found to have a statistically significant impact on water sorption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.