Comparison of Two Chosen 3D Printing Resins Designed for Orthodontic Use: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

(1) Background: In recent years, 3D printing has become a highly popular tool for manufacturing in various fields such as aviation, automobiles, plastics, and even medicine, including dentistry. Three-dimensional printing allows dentists to create high-precision models of teeth and jaw structure, and enables them to develop customized tools for patients' treatment. The range of resins used in dentistry is quite large, and this branch is developing rapidly; hence, studies comparing different resins are required. The present study aimed to compare the mechanical properties of two chosen resins used in dentistry. (2) Materials and methods: Ten specimens each of two types of 3D-printable resins (BioMed Amber and IBT, developed by Formlabs) were prepared. The samples were printed on a Formlabs Form 2 3D printer according to ISO standards. Samples for the compression test were rectangular in shape (10 ± 0.2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm), while the samples used for the tensile test were dumbbell shaped (75 mm long, with 10 mm end width and 2 mm thickness). Tensile and compression tests of both materials were performed in accordance with the appropriate ISO standards. (3) Results: The BioMed Amber resin was more resistant to compression and tensile forces, thus implying that the resin could withstand higher stress during stretching, pulling, or pushing. The IBT resin was less resistant to such loads, and failure of this material occurred at lower forces than those for Biomed Amber. An ANOVA test confirmed that the observed differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Based on the properties of both materials, the IBT resin could be better used as a tray for placing orthodontic brackets through an indirect bonding technique, while the BioMed Amber resin would be more useful as a surgical guide for placing dental implants and mini-implants. Further potential fields of application of the resins should be investigated.

Keywords: 3D printing in dentistry; compression; dental materials; resins; tensile.

Figure 1

Axial compression test according to the PN-EN ISO 604:2003 standard (F, force (N); A, initial cross-sectional area measurement (mm²); L, measurement of the distance between compression plates (mm); ΔL, decrease in distance between the plates (mm)).

Figure 2

Illustration of the samples tested in the Universal Testing Machine during the (A) compression test and (B) tensile test.

Figure 3

Tensile test according to the PN-EN ISO 527-1: 2019 (E) standard (F, force (N), A, initial cross-sectional area measurement (mm²); L, measurement of the distance between the grips (mm); ΔL, increase in distance between the grips (mm)).

Figure 4

Histograms of the measurement results of Young’s modulus in the compression test against a background of normal data distribution for the two dental resins and the normality test results.

Figure 5

Histograms of the measurement results of Young’s modulus in the tensile test against a background of normal data distribution for the two dental resins and the normality test results.

Figure 6

Compressive modulus (left) and tensile modulus (right) of the two dental resins and the results of the Mann–Whitney U test.