Can nonhazardous postprocessing cleaning solutions enable adequate surface properties for printed dental casts in different resins?

Statement Of Problem Printed casts and dental devices and prostheses are increasingly being used, and the ecological impact of additive manufacturing should be considered in addition to the fabrication accuracy and surface properties of the printed object. To overcome the ecological drawbacks of alcohol postprocessing, water-washable, 3-dimensionally (3D) printable cast resins and postprocessing cleaning solutions that do not include alcohol have been introduced. However, whether using only water rather than chemical solvents would enable the surface smoothness and hardness required for accurate diagnostic and prosthetic procedures is unknown. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of resin type (water-washable or nonwater washable) and postprocessing cleaning solution on the surface roughness and microhardness of 3D printed dental cast resins. Material And Methods One hundred eight disk-shaped specimens (Ø10×2 mm) were additively manufactured (AM) from 3 dental cast resins: 2 water-washable (Epax (WW1) and Phrozen (WW2)) and 1 nonwater-washable resin (KeyModel Ultra resin-beige (NWW)) with a printer (n=36). Specimens in each resin type were divided into 3 groups for the application of postprocessing cleaning solution (water, 98% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] or methyl ether solvent) and polymerized after cleaning. The surface roughness (R, µm) and Vickers microhardness (HV) were measured. Laser microscope images were made of 1 specimen from each group. Results NWW-IPA (control group) had a similar R to WW2-water (P=.81) and WW2-methyl ether solvent (P=.511). NWW-IPA had lower HV than WW2-water (P<.001) and WW1-methyl ether solvent (P=.001). Solutions had no significant effect on the R of WW1 (P≥.554) and WW2 (P≥.805). WW1 had higher surface irregularities with water, whereas no significant difference was visually observed with IPA or methyl ether solvent. Solutions had a similar effect on the surface of WW2 when evaluated visually with the laser microscope. Conclusions Resin type and postprocessing cleaning solution affected the surface roughness and microhardness of 3D printed dental cast resins, except for the surface roughness of tested water-washable resins. Water or methyl ether solvent cleaned water-washable resin (WW2) had surface roughness and hardness similar to commonly used nonwater-washable cast resin.