Student Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Science (M.S.) in Dentistry

Copyright Statement

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of Nova Southeastern University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.


College of Dental Medicine

First Advisor

Jeffrey Thompson

Publication Date / Copyright Date



Nova Southeastern University


Objective: This study compared the physical and optical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using CAD/CAM or 3D printing technology. Aim: To compare the biaxial flexural strength, microhardness, translucency parameter and gloss of provisional resin discs fabricated by milling PMMA blocks, versus two different resins printed using 3D printers. Hypothesis: There is no difference in the flexural strength, hardness, translucency and gloss of provisional resins fabricated by different digital technologies. Materials and methods: 90-disc shaped specimens for provisional resins were fabricated using a common digital file. These samples were equally distributed in three groups of 30 each. Group I samples were fabricated by milling specimens from a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Group II samples were fabricated by printing urethane methacrylate resin using a 3D DLP printer. Group III samples were fabricated by printing acrylic ester resin using a 3D SLA printer. All samples were tested for biaxial flexural strength, translucency parameter, microhardness and gloss. Results A one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD pair-wise comparisons was employed to analyze the data and answer the research questions. The mean values for biaxial flexural strength for milled polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), urethane methacrylate resin and acrylic ester resin were 136.9 MPa, 101.6 MPa and 98.4 MPa respectively. The mean hardness values for the groups in the same order were 28.5, 9.7 and 14.8 respectively. The mean translucency parameter values for the groups in the same order were 3.8, 6.3 and 4.4 respectively. The mean gloss values for the groups in the same order were 3.9, 28.8 and 1.7 respectively. There was a statistically significant difference amongst the groups for all parameters tested. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that milled PMMA has superior flexural strength and hardness compared to 3D printed resins. Urethane methacrylate resin showed significantly better translucency and gloss when compared to milled PMMA or acrylic ester resin. Each approach to creating provisional restorations displayed advantages and disadvantages when comparing characteristics of clinical interest.




3D printing, CAD/CAM, Crown and bridge, Provisional



Download Full Text (1.6 MB)

Included in

Dentistry Commons