Roughness and Gloss of 3D-Printed Crowns Following Polishing or Varnish Application

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and gloss-both initially and after simulated toothbrushing-of three 3D-printed crown materials subjected to different surface treatments: varnishing, polishing with diamond-impregnated rubber polishers, and polishing with a bristle brush and paste. Disc-shaped specimens (n = 90) were 3D-printed using three commercially available crown resins (Rodin Sculpture, VarseoSmile TriniQ, and OnX Tough 2) and post-processed per manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were divided into three surface treatment groups: application of a light-cured varnish, polishing with a two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher, or polishing with a bristle brush and abrasive paste. Surface roughness and gloss were measured after treatment and again following 20,000 cycles of simulated toothbrushing. Additional specimens were prepared for Vickers microhardness testing and determination of filler weight percentage (wt%). Statistical comparisons were performed using two-way ANOVA with significance set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. Results: The varnish provided the statistically lowest roughness of all surface treatments for all materials. The bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol produced the greatest gloss for the softest material (VarseoSmile TriniQ) and lowest gloss for the hardest material (Rodin Sculpture), whereas the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced an equivalent gloss on all materials. Following toothbrushing, roughness was minimally affected; however, gloss was considerably reduced. Conclusions: All tested polishing and varnishing methods achieved clinically acceptable surface roughness (Ra < 0.2 µm) that persisted after simulated toothbrushing. Notably, the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced consistent gloss across all materials, while the bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol performed better on softer materials, and varnish application resulted in equal or superior gloss and roughness retention compared to polishing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Materials
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18143308
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.73
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Roughness and Gloss of 3D-Printed Crowns Following Polishing or Varnish Application

Tariq Alsahafi, Taiseer A. Sulaiman, Silvia Rojas‐Rueda, Nathaniel C. Lawson et al.
7 citations
Materials
Dental materials and restorations
11.73
article

Roughness and Gloss of 3D-Printed Crowns Following Polishing or Varnish Application

Tariq Alsahafi, Taiseer A. Sulaiman, Silvia Rojas‐Rueda, Nathaniel C. Lawson, Nitish Surathu, Neeraj Surathu, Mohammed Hammamy
article en
7 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and gloss-both initially and after simulated toothbrushing-of three 3D-printed crown materials subjected to different surface treatments: varnishing, polishing with diamond-impregnated rubber polishers, and polishing with a bristle brush and paste. Disc-shaped specimens (n = 90) were 3D-printed using three commercially available crown resins (Rodin Sculpture, VarseoSmile TriniQ, and OnX Tough 2) and post-processed per manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were divided into three surface treatment groups: application of a light-cured varnish, polishing with a two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher, or polishing with a bristle brush and abrasive paste. Surface roughness and gloss were measured after treatment and again following 20,000 cycles of simulated toothbrushing. Additional specimens were prepared for Vickers microhardness testing and determination of filler weight percentage (wt%). Statistical comparisons were performed using two-way ANOVA with significance set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. Results: The varnish provided the statistically lowest roughness of all surface treatments for all materials. The bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol produced the greatest gloss for the softest material (VarseoSmile TriniQ) and lowest gloss for the hardest material (Rodin Sculpture), whereas the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced an equivalent gloss on all materials. Following toothbrushing, roughness was minimally affected; however, gloss was considerably reduced. Conclusions: All tested polishing and varnishing methods achieved clinically acceptable surface roughness (Ra < 0.2 µm) that persisted after simulated toothbrushing. Notably, the two-step diamond-impregnated rubber polisher produced consistent gloss across all materials, while the bristle brush and abrasive paste polishing protocol performed better on softer materials, and varnish application resulted in equal or superior gloss and roughness retention compared to polishing.

MaterialsVol. 18(14)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Waikato Institute of Technology (NZ), Qassim University (SA), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Dental materials and restorations
11.73
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.