PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Applied Sciences· 2026Q2

Physicomechanical Properties and Crown Fracture Load of 3D-Printed Resins, a Milled Resin Composite, and Lithium Disilicate Glass-Ceramic: An In Vitro Comparative Study

Gyu-Ri Kim, Keunbada Son, Kyu‐Bok Lee

Short summary

3D-printed resin (CB) showed the highest tensile strength and crown fracture load (CFL), surpassing other 3D-printed resins and a milled composite, though lithium disilicate (RSM) had superior flexural strength and hardness.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Lithium disilicate (RSM) had the highest flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), compressive strength (CS), and Vickers hardness number (VHN).
  • A 3D-printed resin (CB) achieved the highest tensile strength (TS) and crown fracture load (CFL).
  • All tested 3D-printed resins had a degree of conversion (DC) above 60%, with CB and VS showing higher DC than CT.
  • Material performance rankings varied between standardized mechanical tests and crown fracture testing.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

This in vitro study compared the physicomechanical properties and crown fracture load (CFL) of three additively manufactured (AM) resins for definitive crowns (C&B Permanent [CB], CROWNTEC [CT], and VarseoSmile Crown plus [VS]), a milled resin composite (SHOFU HC [HC]), and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (Rosetta SM [RSM]). The degree of conversion (DC) was assessed for AM resins (n = 5 per material); flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), tensile strength (TS), compressive strength (CS), CFL, and Vickers hardness number (VHN) were assessed for all materials (n = 10 per material). Welch analysis of variance and Games–Howell comparisons were used, with Holm adjustment across seven omnibus tests (α = 0.05). All omnibus comparisons remained significant after adjustment (p < 0.001). CB and VS exhibited higher DC than CT. All measured DC values exceeded 60%, although this alone does not establish clinical adequacy. RSM exhibited the highest FS, FM, CS, and VHN, whereas CB exhibited the highest TS and CFL. Standardized specimen tests ranked the materials differently than crown fracture testing. Material selection should integrate standardized properties with restoration-level evidence. These product- and protocol-specific static results do not establish clinical indications or predict long-term survival.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Applied Sciences, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Orthodontics

OrthodonticsDentistry