PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Journal of Prosthodontics· 2026Q1

Effect of post‐print cleaning protocol on mechanical, optical, and conversion characteristics of two 3D‐printed resin composites for definitive crowns

T P Liu, Princy Thakkar, Zachary G. Cuny, Nathaniel C. Lawson et al.

Short summary

A 5-second isopropyl alcohol (IPA) wash yielded the highest flexural strength and degree of conversion for two 3D-printed crown resins, with minimal translucency loss in a lower-filled material, while longer IPA washes or alternative cleaners reduced these properties, especially in a higher-filled resin.

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

Key points

  • A 5-second isopropyl alcohol (IPA) wash resulted in the highest flexural strength and degree of conversion for both tested 3D-printed crown resins.
  • The higher-filled resin (Rodin Sculpture 2.0) experienced significant translucency reduction with all cleaning protocols except the 5-second IPA wash.
  • Extending IPA cleaning from 5 to 60 seconds reduced strength, conversion, and translucency in the higher-filled resin but not the lower-filled one.
  • Alternative cleaning solutions (Rodin Universal Resin Cleaner, Harvest InovaPrint Wash, Saremco Print Cleaning Concentrate) generally resulted in lower flexural strength compared to the 5-second IPA wash.

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

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the influence of post‐print cleaning protocols on the biaxial flexural strength, degree of conversion, and translucency of two 3D‐printed definitive crown materials with differing filler content. Materials and methods Lower‐filled (Detax Crown; 24.4 wt% filler) and higher‐filled (Rodin Sculpture 2.0; 60.2 wt% filler) 3D‐printed crown materials were subjected to five cleaning conditions: isopropyl alcohol for 5 s (IPA‐5s) or 60 s (IPA‐60s), Rodin Universal Resin Cleaner, Harvest InovaPrint Wash, or Saremco Print Cleaning Concentrate. Biaxial flexural strength (ISO 4049:2019), degree of conversion, and translucency were measured, and surface morphology was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two‐way ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustment and Spearman correlations were applied ( α = 0.05). Results IPA‐5s produced the numerically highest flexural strength in both materials, significantly so only for Sculpture 2.0, whereas Harvest and Saremco produced the lowest, and Rodin intermediate. IPA‐60s reduced the strength for Sculpture 2.0 ( p < 0.001) but not for Detax Crown ( p = 0.539). Sculpture 2.0 showed significant translucency reductions with all conditions except IPA‐5s, whereas Detax Crown translucency remained stable. IPA‐5s also produced the highest degree of conversion for both materials, with an exploratory correlation between mean flexural strength and mean degree of conversion across protocols ( n = 5 group means per material), reaching significance only for Detax Crown ( r s = 0.900, p = 0.037). SEM showed well‐embedded filler in Detax Crown across conditions, whereas Sculpture 2.0 showed greater filler exposure variability. Conclusion All alternative cleaning protocols reduced flexural strength and degree of conversion in both materials, but the optical response was material‐specific. Translucency varied only slightly in the lower filled material, whereas the higher filled material showed marked translucency loss with every protocol other than a 5‐s IPA wash. Extending IPA exposure from 5 to 60 s reduced strength, degree of conversion, and translucency in the higher filled material but not the lower filled material. Strength loss was accompanied by reduced degree of conversion in the lower filled material and, in the higher filled material, additionally by opacification and greater filler exposure on SEM.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Prosthodontics, 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