Comparison of Adhesion of Soft-Liner between Conventional PMMA and 3D Printed Resin Denture Bases

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tensile strength of the soft-liner (Molloplast-B®) between the denture foundation made of 3D printed resin and traditional acrylic (PMMA). Materials and Methods: In this experiment, 60 acrylic specimens in the shape of reverse dumbbells were employed. The first group consisted of 24 specimens made from traditional acrylic polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (Vertex, Veracril, and Duradent) while the second group consisted of 24 specimens made from 3D printed resin (Dentona). The third group consisted of 12 samples that were packed at the dough stage of acrylic and soft liner at the same time. After that, the samples from the first and second groups were split in two, with one half receiving no surface treatment and the other half undergoing sandblasting. Every sample is separated into two halves with precise measurements. The thickest and thinnest sections were 80 mm in length (10 mm x 25 mm) and 8 mm x 15 mm, respectively, and were joined in the middle by the soft-liner material. The experiment's tensile strength was examined in two separate directions to ascertain the soft-liner material's strength of adhesion to the sample's chosen materials. Results: The data analysis of the tensile strength test revealed a statistically significant difference in the soft-liner adhesion strength between the 3D-printed acrylic resin with sandblast treatment (0.2133 ± 0.03939 kN/mm²) and the 3D-printed acrylic resin without surface treatment (0.1567 ± 0.04677 kN/mm²). Similar results were observed for conventional acrylic PMMA, where the sandblasted acrylic PMMA (0.0950 ± 0.03606 kN/mm²) exhibited significantly better bond strength compared to the untreated acrylic PMMA (0.0875 ± 0.02491 kN/mm²). Dough stage samples had better values complared to traditional acrylic (0.1483± 0.03689 kN/mm²). Conclusion: The results demonstrate that sandblast treatment significantly improves the soft-liner adhesion strength of both 3D-printed acrylic resin and conventional acrylic PMMA. Surface treatment enhances bond strength compared to untreated materials. These findings suggest that sandblasting is an effective method for improving adhesion in acrylic-based materials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dentistry 3000
Published
2025-02-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5195/d3000.2025.785
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Adhesion of Soft-Liner between Conventional PMMA and 3D Printed Resin Denture Bases

Paul Nahas, Juzailah Roffie, Husniyati Roslan, Dawood Jadaan
Dentistry 3000
Dental materials and restorations
article

Comparison of Adhesion of Soft-Liner between Conventional PMMA and 3D Printed Resin Denture Bases

Paul Nahas, Juzailah Roffie, Husniyati Roslan, Dawood Jadaan
article en

Abstract

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tensile strength of the soft-liner (Molloplast-B®) between the denture foundation made of 3D printed resin and traditional acrylic (PMMA). Materials and Methods: In this experiment, 60 acrylic specimens in the shape of reverse dumbbells were employed. The first group consisted of 24 specimens made from traditional acrylic polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (Vertex, Veracril, and Duradent) while the second group consisted of 24 specimens made from 3D printed resin (Dentona). The third group consisted of 12 samples that were packed at the dough stage of acrylic and soft liner at the same time. After that, the samples from the first and second groups were split in two, with one half receiving no surface treatment and the other half undergoing sandblasting. Every sample is separated into two halves with precise measurements. The thickest and thinnest sections were 80 mm in length (10 mm x 25 mm) and 8 mm x 15 mm, respectively, and were joined in the middle by the soft-liner material. The experiment's tensile strength was examined in two separate directions to ascertain the soft-liner material's strength of adhesion to the sample's chosen materials. Results: The data analysis of the tensile strength test revealed a statistically significant difference in the soft-liner adhesion strength between the 3D-printed acrylic resin with sandblast treatment (0.2133 ± 0.03939 kN/mm²) and the 3D-printed acrylic resin without surface treatment (0.1567 ± 0.04677 kN/mm²). Similar results were observed for conventional acrylic PMMA, where the sandblasted acrylic PMMA (0.0950 ± 0.03606 kN/mm²) exhibited significantly better bond strength compared to the untreated acrylic PMMA (0.0875 ± 0.02491 kN/mm²). Dough stage samples had better values complared to traditional acrylic (0.1483± 0.03689 kN/mm²). Conclusion: The results demonstrate that sandblast treatment significantly improves the soft-liner adhesion strength of both 3D-printed acrylic resin and conventional acrylic PMMA. Surface treatment enhances bond strength compared to untreated materials. These findings suggest that sandblasting is an effective method for improving adhesion in acrylic-based materials.

Dentistry 3000Vol. 13(1)
University of Tikrit (IQ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.