Comparative Wear Resistance of Additive, Subtractive and Prefabricated Resin Denture Teeth: An In Vitro Study
Objectives: The purpose of this research is to evaluate the wear volume of resin dentures produced through additive manufacturing, comparing them with conventional acrylic denture options available in the market.
Methods: The study involved three distinct sets of denture samples: 1) prefabricated acrylic dentures, 2) subtractive-manufactured denture teeth, and 3) additive-manufactured denture teeth. All samples were anchored in self-curing acrylic resin for wear assessment. A matching antagonist mimicking a second premolar, crafted from identical material, was developed to interact with the samples. The samples underwent occlusive force testing of 5 kg over 120,000 cycles in a chewing simulator, continuously submerged in distilled water. Measurements of wear volume and depth were obtained through a 3D profilometer. Statistical evaluations were conducted using one-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test, maintaining a significance threshold of 0.05.
Results: Significant disparities in wear volume were observed among the groups. The prefabricated acrylic denture group showed no notable difference from the subtractive-manufactured group, nor did the comparison between the additive-manufactured denture teeth. However, both the prefabricated and the additive-manufactured denture teeth groups demonstrated more considerable wear than the additive-manufactured groups (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Denture teeth produced from additive manufacturing process showed superior resistance to wear compared to the prefabricated and subtractive-manufactured denture teeth counterparts under conditions simulating mastication.
1. Jacobson TE, Krol AJ. A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete denture retention, stability, and support. Part I: retention. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49(1):5-15.
2. Suwannaroop P, Chaijareenont P, Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. In vitro wear resistance, hardness and elastic modulus of artificial denture teeth. Dent Mater J. 2011;30(4):461-8.
3. Andreescu C, Ghergic D, Botoaca O, Hancu V, Banateanu AM, Patroi D. Evaluation of different materials used for fabrication of complete digital denture. Mater Plast. 2018;55:124-8.
4. Saponaro PC, Yilmaz B, Heshmati RH, McGlumphy EA. Clinical performance of CAD-CAM-fabricated complete dentures: a cross-sectional study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(3):431-5.
5. Bidra AS, Taylor TD, Agar JR. Computer-aided technology for fabricating complete dentures: systematic review of historical background, current status, and future perspectives. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(6):361-6.
6. Steinmassl O, Dumfahrt H, Grunert I, Steinmassl PA. CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(8):2829-35.
7. Janeva NM, Kovacevska G, Elencevski S, Panchevska S, Mijoska A, Lazarevska B. Advantages of CAD/CAM versus conventional complete dentures - a review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 20;6(8):1498-502.
8. Anadioti E, Musharbash L, Blatz MB, Papavasiliou G, Kamposiora P. 3D printed complete removable dental prostheses: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):343.
9. Pham DM, Gonzalez MD, Ontiveros JC, Kasper FK, Frey GN, Belles DM. Wear resistance of 3D printed and prefabricated denture teeth opposing zirconia. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(9):804-10.
10. Cha HS, Park JM, Kim TH, Lee JH. Wear resistance of 3D-printed denture tooth resin opposing zirconia and metal antagonists. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(3):387-94.
11. Park JM, Ahn JS, Cha HS, Lee JH. Wear resistance of 3D printing resin material opposing zirconia and metal antagonists. Materials (Basel). 2018;11(6):1043.
12. D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, Vadini M, De Angelis F. Wear evaluation of prosthetic materials opposing themselves. Oper Dent. 2018;43(1):38-50.
13. DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater. 2006;22(8):702-11.
14. Janeva N, Kovacevska G, Janev E. Complete dentures fabricated with CAD/CAM technology and a traditional clinical recording method. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2017;5(6):785-9.
15. von Fraunhofer JA, Razavi R, Khan Z. Wear characteristics of high-strength denture teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;59(2):173-5.
16. Kamonwanon P, Yodmongkol S, Chantarachindawong R, Thaweeboon S, Thaweeboon B, Srikhirin T. Wear resistance of a modified polymethyl methacrylate artificial tooth compared to five commercially available artificial tooth materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(2):286-92.
17. Saadi ASA, El-Damanhoury HM, Khalifa N. 2D and 3D wear analysis of 3D printed and prefabricated artificial teeth. Int Dent J. 2023;73(1):87-92.
18. DeLong R, Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, Pintado MR. The wear of dental amalgam in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater. 1985;1(6):238-42.
19. Lim NK, Shin SY. Bonding of conventional provisional resin to 3D printed resin: the role of surface treatments and type of repair resins. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(5):322-8.
20. Stober T, Lutz T, Gilde H, Rammelsberg P. Wear of resin denture teeth by two-body contact. Dent Mater. 2006;22(3):243-9.
21. Reis KR, Bonfante G, Pegoraro LF, Conti PC, Oliveira PC, Kaizer OB. In vitro wear resistance of three types of polymethyl methacrylate denture teeth. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16(3):176-80.