Farklı temizleme yöntemlerine bağlı olarak konvansiyonel ve 3D baskılı rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü: taramalı elektron mikroskobu yaklaşımı

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı temizleme yöntemlerinin konvansiyonel PMMA ve üç boyutlu (3D) baskılı akrilik rezin materyalinin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Yöntem: Toplam 80 adet disk şeklinde örnek (Ø10x3 mm), PMMA için konvansiyonel ısı ile polimerizasyon tekniğiyle ve 3D baskılı rezin örnekleri için Dijital Işık İşleme (DLP) tabanlı yazıcıda biyouyumlu bir akrilik rezin kullanılarak üretildi. Yüzey standardizasyonunun ardından tüm örnekler, uygulanan temizlik yöntemine göre 4 alt gruba ayrıldı. Kontrol grubundaki (Grup C) örnekler saf suda bekletildi; ikinci grup (Grup T) Corega tablet çözeltisine daldırıldı. Üçüncü grup (Grup B), diş fırçalama simülatöründe sıvı sabunla 5000 döngülük fırçalama işlemine tabi tutuldu. Dördüncü grup (Grup BT) ise aynı şekilde fırçalanarak Corega tablet çözeltisine daldırıldı. Temizlik öncesi ve sonrası yüzey pürüzlülüğü (Ra), kontakt profilometre ile ölçüldü. Yüzey morfolojisi taramalı elektron mikroskobu (SEM) ile değerlendirildi. Verilerin analizinde Kolmogorov-Smirnov, tekrarlı ölçümler ANOVA ve post-hoc testleri kullanıldı (p<0.05). Bulgular: Başlangıç yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerleri PMMA ve 3D baskılı rezinler için anlamlı fark göstermedi. Tüm temizlik işlemlerinden sonra en yüksek pürüzlülük her iki materyal için de Grup BT’de gözlendi. Fırçalama işlemi tek başına ya da kombinasyon halinde her iki materyalde de yüzey pürüzlülüğünü anlamlı şekilde artırdı (p<0.001). En yüksek pürüzlülük Grup BT’de (0.22), en düşük değerler ise Grup T örneklerinde (0.15) gözlendi. Uygulanan yöntemler açısından materyal grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı. Sonuç: Hareketli protez kaide materyallerinin yüzey pürüzlülüğü, uygulanan temizleme yöntemlerinden etkilenmektedir. Fırçalama işlemi, tabletle temizlemeye göre daha aşındırıcı bir etkiye sahiptir. Gruplar içinde yüzey pürüzlülüğü artsa da, materyaller arasında anlamlı fark saptanmamıştır. Hastalara, protez temizleme yöntemlerinin yüzey bütünlüğünü etkileyebileceği konusunda bilgi verilmelidir.

Keywords

• 3D baskılı rezin
• eklemeli üretim
• protez temizleyici
• PMMA
• yüzey pürüzlülüğü

Surface roughness of conventional and 3D printed resins as a function of different cleaning processes: a scanning electron microscopy approach

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to the investigate the effect of different cleaning methods on the surface roughness of conventional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and three-dimensional printed (3D) acrylic resin material. Methods: Eighty disc-shaped specimens of conventional PMMA and 3D-printed resin were prepared and divided into four subgroups based on cleaning methods. The specimens of the control group (group C) were immersed in distilled water, the second group (group T) was immersed in Corega tablet solution. The third group (group B) was subjected with liquid soap in a toothbrush simulator. The specimens in the fourth group (group BT) were brushed in the same way with liquid soap and immersed in Corega tablet solution. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured before and after cleaning, using a contact profilometer. Surface morphology was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Kolmogorov-Smirnov, repeated-measures ANOVA, and post-hoc tests were done to analyze the data (p<0.05). Results: Initial surface roughness values were not significantly differed between PMMA and 3D-printed resins. After cleaning, the highest roughness was observed in group BT (PMMA: 0.25 µm; 3D resin: 0.21 µm), and the lowest in group C (PMMA: 0.15 µm; 3D resin: 0.12 µm). Brushing alone or in combination significantly increased surface roughness for both materials (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference among the material groups for each type of cleaning procedure. Conclusion: The surface roughness of denture bases are affected by different cleaning procedures. Brushing alone had a greater abrasive effect than tablet immersion. Although surface roughness increased within groups, no significant differences were found among the materials. Clinical recommendations should consider that denture cleaning methods may influence the surface integrity of the prosthesis.

Keywords

• 3D-printed resin
• additive manufacturing
• denture cleanser
• PMMA
• surface roughness

References

1. Salama F, Al-khunaini N, Al-Rashed S, Abou-Obaid AA, Elsharawy M. Effect of different denture cleansers on surface roughness of acrylic denture base materials. Int J Contemp Res Rev. 2017;35(2):14-20. doi:10. 15520/ijcrr/2017/8/11/359
2. Ratanajanchai M, Kanchanavasita W, Suputtamongkol K, Wonglamsam A, Thamapipol S, Sae-Khow O. Heat-cured poly (methyl methacrylate) resin incorporated with different food preservatives as an anti-microbial denture base material. J Dent Sci. 2021;16(2):706-712. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.09.006
3. Schweiger J, Stumbaum J, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. Systematics and concepts for the digital production of complete dentures: risks and opportunities. Int J Comput Dent. 2018;21(1):41-56.
4. Gutiérrez TJ. 3D Printing of Biopolymers: Trends and Opportunities for Medical Applications. In Handbook of Biopolymers: Advances and Multifaceted Applications; Jenny Stanford Publishing. 2018:45-74.
5. Limírio JPJ, Gomes JML, Rezende MCR, et al. Mechanical properties of polymethyl methacrylate as a denture base: conventional versus CAD-CAM resin-a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro Studies. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022;128(6):1221-1229. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03. 018
6. Javaid M, Haleem A. Current status and applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: a literature-based review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019;9(3):179-185. doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.04.004
7. Salerno C, Pascale M, Contaldo M, et al. Candida-associated denture stomatitis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16:139-143. doi:10.4317/medoral.16.e139
8. Gornitsky M, Paradis J, Zandaverde G, Malo AM, Velly AM. A clinical and microbiological evaluation of denture cleansers for geriatric patients in long-term care institutions. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002;68(1):39-45.

9. Panariello BH, Izumida FE, Moffa EB, Pavarina AC, Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET. Effects of short-term immersion and brushing with different denture cleansers on the roughness, hardness, and color of two types of acrylic resin. Am J Dent. 2015;28(3):150-156.
10. Alqanas SS, Alfuhaid RA, Alghamdi SF, Al-Qarni FD, Gad MM. Effect of denture cleansers on the surface properties and color stability of 3D printed denture base materials. J Dent. 2022;120:104089. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104089
11. Al-Thobity AM, Gad M, ArRejaie A, Alnassar T, Al-Khalifa KS. Impact of denture cleansing solution immersion on some properties of different denture base materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(8):913-919. doi:10.1111/jopr.12649
12. Çakmak G, Donmez MB, Atalay S, et al. Surface roughness and stainability of CAD-CAM denture base materials after simulated brushing and coffee thermocycling. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132(1):260-266. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.006
13. Yu P, Wang C, Zhou J, Jiang L, Xue J, Li W. Influence of surface properties on adhesion forces and attachment of Streptococcus mutans to zirconia in vitro. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8901253. doi:10.1155/2016/8901253
14. Andreotti AM, Sousa CA, Goiato MC, et al. In vitro evaluation of microbial adhesion on the different surface roughness of acrylic resin specific for ocular prosthesis. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(2):176-183. doi:10. 4103/ejd.ejd_50_18
15. Nakhaei M, Dashti H, Sasannejad S, Mohammadipour HS. Bonding the titanium attachment matrix housing to acrylic overdentures using different primers, adhesives, and resin materials: an in vitro study. Int J Dent. 2025;2025(1):9702318. doi:10.1155/ijod/9702318
16. Halis G, Köroğlu A, Şahin O, Dede DÖ, Yılmaz B. Effect of simulated toothbrushing on surface roughness of sealant agent coupled nanohybrid composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022;34(6):907-914. doi:10.1111/jerd.12871
17. Davidowitz G, Kotick PG. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011;55(3):559-ix. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011
18. Zafar MS. Prosthodontic applications of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA): an update. Polymers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2299. doi:10.3390/polym12102299.
19. Penzenstadler M, Intarak N, Kamnoedboon P, et al. In vitro analysis of composition profiles of resins for 3D printing of dentures. J Dent. 2025; 154:105565. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105565
20. Fotovat F, Abbasi S, Nikanjam S, Alafchi B, Baghiat M. Effects of various disinfectants on surface roughness and color stability of thermoset and 3D-printed acrylic resin. Eur J Transl Myol. 2024;34(1):11701. doi:10. 4081/ejtm.2024.11701
21. Fouda SM, Gad MM, Ellakany P, et al. Influence of denture brushing on the surface properties and color stability of CAD-CAM, thermoformed, and conventionally fabricated denture base resins. J Prosthodont. 2025; 34(1):91-100. doi:10.1111/jopr.13801
22. Rossato MB, Unfer B, May LG, Braun KO. Analysis of the effectiveness of different hygiene procedures used in dental prostheses. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2011;9(3):221-227.
23. Costa MS, Lovato da Silva CH, de Cássia Oliveira V, et al. Effects of different forms of denture adhesives on biofilm formation, adhesive strength and hygiene of complete dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35(6): 784-792. doi:10.11607/ijp.7188
24. Yuzugullu B, Acar O, Cetinsahin C, Celik C. Effect of different denture cleansers on surface roughness and microhardness of artificial denture teeth. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(5):333-338. doi:10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.333
25. Paranhos HF, Salles AE, Macedo LD, Silva-Lovato CH, Pagnano VO, Watanabe E. Complete denture biofilm after brushing with specific denture paste, neutral soap and artificial saliva. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(1): 47-52. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201301946
26. Santi MR, Khodor N, Sekula M, Donatelli D, De Souza GM. Effect of cleaning solution on surface properties of 3D-printed denture materials. J Prosthodont. 2024. doi:10.1111/jopr.13936
27. Gad MM, Khattar A, Alramadan DM, et al. Nanoparticle-modified 3D-printed denture base resins: influence of denture cleansers on the color stability and surface roughness in vitro. Nanomaterials. 2024; 14(10):891. doi:10.3390/nano14100891
28. Coelho SRG, da Silva MDD, Nunes TSBS, Viotto HEC, Marin DOM, Pero AC. Effect of immersion in disinfectants on the color stability of denture base resins and artificial teeth obtained by 3D printing. J Prosthodont. 2024,33(2),157-163. doi:10.1111/jopr.13663
29. Paranhos Hde F, Peracini A, Pisani MX, Oliveira Vde C, de Souza RF, Silva-Lovato CH. Color stability, surface roughness and flexural strength of an acrylic resin submitted to simulated overnight immersion in denture cleansers. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(2):152-156. doi:10.1590/0103-6440201302151
30. Ural C, Sanal FA, Cengiz S. Effect of different denture cleansers on surface roughness of denture base materials. Clin Dent Res. 2011;35(2):14-20.
31. Felipucci DN, Davi LR, Paranhos HF, Bezzon OL, Silva RF, Pagnano VO. Effect of different cleansers on the surface of removable partial denture. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(5):392-397. doi:10.1590/s0103-64402011000500008
32. Peracini A, Davi LR, de Queiroz Ribeiro N, de Souza RF, Lovato da Silva CH, de Freitas Oliveira Paranhos H. Effect of denture cleansers on physical properties of heat-polymerized acrylic resin. J Prosthodont Res. 2010;54(2):78-83. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2009.11.004
33. Durkan R, Ayaz EA, Bagis B, Gurbuz A, Ozturk N, Korkmaz FM. Comparative effects of denture cleansers on physical properties of polyamide and polymethyl methacrylate base polymers. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(3):367-375. doi:10.4012/dmj.2012-110
34. Ozyilmaz OY, Akin C. Effect of cleansers on denture base resins’ structural properties. J Appl Biomater Funct. 2019;17:2280800019827797. doi:10.1177/2280800019827797
35. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Brun P, et al. Comparison of the flexural and surface properties of milled, 3D-printed, and heat polymerized PMMA resins for denture bases: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2022;66(3): 502-508. doi:10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00116
36. Moussa R, Ellakany P, Fouda SM, El-Din MS. Comparative evaluation of the effects of laser and chemical denture disinfectants on the surface characteristics of CAD-CAM and conventional denture resins: an in vitro experimental study. J Prosthodont. 2024. doi:10.1111/jopr.13952
37. Kassab NH, Mustafa EA, Hasan RH. Antifungal effect: comparison of commercial denture cleansers and microwave energy. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2009;9(1):24-31. doi:10.33899/rden.2009.8990
38. Alifui-Segbaya F, Bowman J, White AR, George R, Fidan I. Characterization of the double bond conversion of acrylic resins for 3D printing of dental prostheses. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2019;40(10): 7-11.
39. Nunes TSBS, Silva MDDD, Coelho SRG, Viotto HEDC, Pero AC. Effectiveness of disinfectant solutions associated or not with brushing on the biofilm control of a 3D printed-denture base resin. J Appl Oral Sci. 2023;31:e20230104. doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0104
40. Zoccolotti JO, Tasso CO, Arbelaéz MIA, et al. Properties of an acrylic resin after immersion in antiseptic soaps: low-cost, easy-access procedure for the prevention of denture stomatitis. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8):e0203187. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203187
41. Alfouzan AF, Alotiabi HM, Labban N, Al-Otaibi HN, Al Taweel SM, AlShehri HA. Effect of aging and mechanical brushing on surface roughness of 3D printed denture resins: a profilometer and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Technol Health Care. 2022;30(1):161-173. doi:10.3233/THC-212974