Flexural Strength and Hardness Analysis of 3D-Printed vs. Milled Resin Composites Indicated for Definitive Crowns

The growing use of 3D-printed dental restorations has created a need to understand how the mechanical behaviour of definitive 3D-printed resin composites compares with milled counterparts. This study compared the mechanical properties of 3D-printed and milled definitive crowns and examined the factors affecting these properties. The 3D-printed materials (Permanent Crown Resin: PCR, VarseoSmile Crown Plus: VCP, and Crowntec: CT) and milled blocks (Brilliant Crios: BC, Shofu Block HC: HC, and Grandio Blocs: Gr) were tested. Filler content was evaluated using the ash method (<i>n</i> = 3), and flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (E<i><sub>f</sub></i>) were assessed using a three-point bending test (<i>n</i> = 10). Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus, and Vickers hardness were determined using the Martens indentation test (<i>n</i> = 24). Vickers hardness was also measured with the Vickers indenter tester (<i>n</i> = 24). Statistical analysis investigated differences between materials and methods, and correlations between filler weight and mechanical properties (α = 0.05). FS of milled blocks, Gr (244.5 MPa), BC (225.5 MPa), and HC (155 MPa), were higher than that of the 3D-printed resin composites: PCR (143.6 MPa), CT (140.9 MPa), and VCP (128 MPa). Measured mechanical properties of the milled blocks were significantly higher than those of the 3D-printed materials (<i>p</i> < 0.001). HM of the 3D-printed materials was similar (≈217 N/mm<sup>2</sup>), while HM of the milled blocks ranged from 434.7 to 858.4 N/mm<sup>2</sup>. The 3D-printed materials showed comparable properties; however, milled blocks differed significantly (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Filler content was strongly associated with FS and HM. Within the limitations of this study, the milled resin composites showed markedly higher strength and hardness, while 3D-printed materials may be suitable for low-to-moderate load clinical scenarios. Further studies to evaluate the long-term performance of the 3D-printed resin composites are recommended.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Published
2025-12-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16120468
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

Flexural Strength and Hardness Analysis of 3D-Printed vs. Milled Resin Composites Indicated for Definitive Crowns

Abdulrahman Jafar Alhaddad, Nick Silikas, Julian D. Satterthwaite, Hunaida Khaled Tayeb
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Dental materials and restorations
article

Flexural Strength and Hardness Analysis of 3D-Printed vs. Milled Resin Composites Indicated for Definitive Crowns

Abdulrahman Jafar Alhaddad, Nick Silikas, Julian D. Satterthwaite, Hunaida Khaled Tayeb
article en

Abstract

The growing use of 3D-printed dental restorations has created a need to understand how the mechanical behaviour of definitive 3D-printed resin composites compares with milled counterparts. This study compared the mechanical properties of 3D-printed and milled definitive crowns and examined the factors affecting these properties. The 3D-printed materials (Permanent Crown Resin: PCR, VarseoSmile Crown Plus: VCP, and Crowntec: CT) and milled blocks (Brilliant Crios: BC, Shofu Block HC: HC, and Grandio Blocs: Gr) were tested. Filler content was evaluated using the ash method (<i>n</i> = 3), and flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (E<i><sub>f</sub></i>) were assessed using a three-point bending test (<i>n</i> = 10). Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus, and Vickers hardness were determined using the Martens indentation test (<i>n</i> = 24). Vickers hardness was also measured with the Vickers indenter tester (<i>n</i> = 24). Statistical analysis investigated differences between materials and methods, and correlations between filler weight and mechanical properties (α = 0.05). FS of milled blocks, Gr (244.5 MPa), BC (225.5 MPa), and HC (155 MPa), were higher than that of the 3D-printed resin composites: PCR (143.6 MPa), CT (140.9 MPa), and VCP (128 MPa). Measured mechanical properties of the milled blocks were significantly higher than those of the 3D-printed materials (<i>p</i> < 0.001). HM of the 3D-printed materials was similar (≈217 N/mm<sup>2</sup>), while HM of the milled blocks ranged from 434.7 to 858.4 N/mm<sup>2</sup>. The 3D-printed materials showed comparable properties; however, milled blocks differed significantly (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Filler content was strongly associated with FS and HM. Within the limitations of this study, the milled resin composites showed markedly higher strength and hardness, while 3D-printed materials may be suitable for low-to-moderate load clinical scenarios. Further studies to evaluate the long-term performance of the 3D-printed resin composites are recommended.

Journal of Functional BiomaterialsVol. 16(12)
King Abdulaziz University (SA), University of Manchester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
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.