RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Mechanical properties, accuracy, and cytotoxicity of

UV-polymerized 3D printing resins composed of BisEMA,
UDMA, and TEGDMA
Chih-Hsin Lin, PhD,a Yuan-Min Lin, DDS, PhD,b Yu-Lin Lai, DDS, MS,c and Shyh-Yuan Lee, DDS, DScDd

Digital dentistry (intraoral image ABSTRACT

acquisition, data processing, and
digital manufacturing) has
revolutionized dental practice.
Digital manufacturing includes
subtractive manufacturing using
computer-aided milling and
additive manufacturing using
3D printing. By cutting a
prefabricated block or disk,
milling technologies can create
prostheses which are compara-
ble with conventional prosthe-
ses in terms of mechanical
performance, biological proper-
ties, and accuracy.1-3 Disadvan-
tages of milling technologies are
that they are unable to shape
complex details such as un-
dercuts and intaglio geometry
and that only one unit can be
produced at a time. In contrast,
additive manufacturing can
build complex geometries and
has the potential to be much
more productive.4
Digital light processing
(DLP) is one of the most
Statement of problem. Three-dimensional printing has the potential for clinical applications, and
additive manufacturing materials for dental use merit further investigation.
Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the properties of materials formulated
with ethoxylated bisphenol A-dimethacrylate (BisEMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), and
triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) as 3D printing resins for ultraviolet digital light
processing (UV-DLP) 3D printers and to characterize the mechanical and biological properties
and accuracy of the printed objects.
Material and methods. Ten different light-polymerized resins were formulated using BisEMA,
UDMA, and TEGDMA. Their viscosities were measured, and only 7 resins with viscosities lower
than 1500 centipoise (cP) were selected for 3D printing and further material characterization. The
light-polymerized resins were printed into representative shapes using a custom-made 3D
printer equipped with a 405-nm UV-DLP projector as the light source. The printed specimens
were subjected to biologic, mechanical, and accuracy tests, and the data were submitted to
1-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc comparisons (a=.05).
Results. Photopolymerizable resins made of BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA were successfully
formulated for 3D printing to fabricate objects of various shapes and sizes. TEGDMA served as
the diluent to reduce the viscosity and increase the degree of conversion, while UDMA and
BisEMA provided strength as demonstrated by the mechanical testing. All the printed objects
passed cytotoxicity testing. The flexural strengths of the printed specimens ranged between 60
MPa and 90 MPa; flexural modulus ranged between 1.7 GPa and 2.1 GPa; and surface hardness
ranged between 14.5 HV and 24.6 HV. These represent similar mechanical properties to those of
currently used clinical resin materials. In the accuracy test, the resin mixture composed of 80%
BisEMA, 10% UDMA, and 10% TEGDMA had the highest accuracy, with a 0.051-mm deviation
from the original design.
Conclusions. BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA are good candidates for the formulation of 3D printing
resins for dental use. The printed objects demonstrated favorable biological and mechanical
properties. Further, the accuracy of the printed specimens showed potential for clinical
application. (J Prosthet Dent 2019;-:---)

C.-H.L. and Y.-M.L. contributed equally to this article. This research is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST106-3114-E-010-002).
a
Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Dentistry, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
b
Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
c
Chairperson, Department of Stomatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
d
Professor, Department of Dentistry, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; and Attending Doctor, Department of Stomatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital,
Taipei, Taiwan; and Researcher, Department of Dentistry, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 1

2 Volume - Issue -

Table 1. Name, composition, and viscosity of formulated resins

Clinical Implications Specimen
Composition (wt%) Viscosity (cP)
Name BisEMA UDMA TEGDMA Mean SD
Three-dimensional printing resins made of BisEMA, 100 100 0 0 952 10
UDMA, and TEGDMA had properties that met 820 80 20 0 1217 13
clinical requirements. Because they were composed 640 60 40 0 1294 66
of components that are well established in 460 40 60 0 2219 61
dentistry, they can be accepted by dentists if 3D 280 20 80 0 3673 27
printers become more accessible. 010 0 100 0 7824 30
811 80 10 10 482 24
631 60 30 10 655 28

promising 3D printing technologies for dental applica- 451 40 50 10 815 17

tions because of its high resolution, rapid processing
speed, and low cost.5 The light coming from a DLP
projector in a 3D printer provides energy to polymerize
photosensitive materials layer by layer.6,7 Because the
choice of monomer is critical to the formulation of 3D
printing resins for dental use, a reasonable approach is to
use monomers commonly found in the light-polymerized
dental composite resins, including bisphenol A-glycidyl
methacrylate (BisGMA) and urethane dimethacrylate
(UDMA). However, these dimethacrylate monomers
have high molecular weights and high viscosities, which
could interfere with successful printing. Therefore, non-
hydroxylated monomers, such as ethoxylated bisphenol
A-dimethacrylate (BisEMA), with a lower viscosity are
good candidates. Furthermore, triethylene glycol dime-
thacrylate (TEGDMA) could be added as a diluent to
decrease the viscosity of a formulated printable resin.8-10
The purpose of this study was to prefabricate potential
printing resins for dental use. The research hypotheses
were that light-polymerized 3D printing resins could be
formulated with BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA and
that the printed objects would have acceptable accuracy
and mechanical and biological properties.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ten experimental composite resins were formulated us-
ing BisEMA (Double Bond Chemical), UDMA (Sigma
Aldrich), and TEGDMA (Double Bond Chemical) as base
materials (Table 1). For every resin, 3% of diphenyl
(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (Sigma Al-
drich) was added as a photoinitiator, initiated by 405 nm
of ultraviolet (UV) light. In addition, 0.5% of titanium
dioxide with an average diameter of 25 nm (First
Chemical), 0.015% of iron oxide with an average diam-
eter of 25 nm (First Chemical), and 0.5% of silicon di-
oxide (First Chemical) with an average diameter of 4 mm
were added to each resin as fillers.
The viscosities of each resin were measured using a
cone-plate viscometer (DV3TRV Rheometer; AMETEK
Brookfield) with a constant volume of 1 mL measured at
10 rpm for 2 minutes at room temperature. The readings
between 10% and 90% torque were recorded every
271 20 70 10 1302 72
BisEMA, ethoxylated bisphenol A-dimethacrylate; SD, standard deviation; TEGDMA,
triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.
second and expressed in centipoise (cP). Only resins with
viscosities lower than 1500 cP were selected for further
experiments. The specimens were printed using a
custom-made UV-DLP printer equipped with a projector
(Q2-B; Delta Electronics) below the transparent resin
tank.4 The tank was covered with 5 mm of poly-
dimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The DLP projector displayed a
series of images of the 3D model and focused on the
PDMS top surface to form specimens. The light intensity
was 4 mW at the resin tank bottom. The layer thickness
was 50 mm, and the exposure time was 4 seconds for each
layer. The printed specimens were washed with iso-
propanol and subjected to 10 minutes of postprinting UV
treatment using a custom-made 405 nm UV box.
The degree of conversion (DC) of the 3D-printed
resin disks (n=5) were calculated by using a Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometer (Nicolet iS5;
Thermo Scientific). All spectrums were normalized to the
C=O peak at 1720 cm−1, and the DC of each specimen
was determined by comparing the intensity of the
aliphatic C=C stretching vibration at 1640 cm−1 of the
polymerized resin and the negative control. The flexural
strength and modulus of the printed rectangular beams
were tested using a universal testing machine (AGS-
500G; Shimadzu Co). The cross-section of the rectan-
gular beams (n=8) had a dimension of 2×2 mm, and the
distance between 2 supports was 25 mm. Force was
applied at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min until fracture.
The microhardness of the 3D-printed cubes (10×10×10
mm, n=8) was measured by using a microhardness tester
(HMV-2; Shimadzu Co) equipped with a Vickers
indenter under a load of 0.98 N for 25 seconds. A total of
18 equidistant measurements covering different surface
areas of each specimen were performed.
The accuracies of the printing were evaluated by
comparing the 3D-printed models with the digital models.
A typodont molar was prepared according to the crown
preparation guidelines11 and scanned using an intraoral

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Lin et al

- 2019
100
80 *
Degree of Conversion (%)
60
40
20
0 0
100 820 640 811 631
Specimen Group
Figure 1. Mean and standard deviations of degree of conversion of
3D-printed cubes. *P<.05.
scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape) as the master digital model. The
digital molar model was then printed out with the
formulated resins. The printed molars were rescanned and
compared with the master digital model using software
(Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) to determine the
printing deviations from the master digital model.
The cytotoxicity of the printed resin cubes was
evaluated in vitro according to the ISO 10993-5
(elution test method).12 The fluid extracts of the prin-
ted cubes (10×10×10 mm, n=3) were placed in phenol
red-free Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM)
containing 100 units/mL of penicillin, 100 mg/mL of
streptomycin, 2.5 mg/mL of fungizone, and 10% v/v of
fetal bovine serum at 37  C for 24 hours under
continuous stirring. Meanwhile, 50 000 cells/well of
murine fibroblasts L929 were seeded into each well of
a 96-well plate and incubated in DMEM containing
antibiotics and 10% v/v of fetal bovine serum at 37  C
for 24 hours. The cell culture medium was then
replaced by the aforementioned fluid extracts and
incubated at 37  C. After 24 hours, cell morphology
and cell density were recorded, and MTT (3-(4,5-
dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bro-
mide) assay was performed.
Data for flexural strength, flexural modulus, DC, and
cytotoxicity were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and
Tukey post hoc tests using statistical software (IBM SPSS
Statistics, v20.0; IBM Corp) (a=.05).
RESULTS
The viscosities of the formulated resins are shown in
Table 1. Formulated resins with more UDMA had higher
viscosities, and adding 10% TEGDMA significantly
reduced the viscosity of the resin mixture; 7 of 10 resins
had viscosities lower than 1500 cP.
Lin et al
3
140 *
120
Flexural Strength (MPa)
100
80
60
40
20
451 271 100 820 640 811 631 451 271
Specimen Group
Figure 2. Mean and standard deviations of flexural strength of
3D-printed beams. *P<.05.
The DC of the 3D-printed cubes is shown in Figure 1,
and the 271 specimen had the highest DC (49.03%). No
statistically significant differences were found among the
DC of the other specimens. The flexural strengths of the
printed resin beams ranged between 60 and 90 MPa
(Fig. 2). Specimen 271 had the highest strength and 820
had the lowest strength. In specimens containing 10%
TEGDMA, specimens that contained more UDMA
exhibited higher flexural strengths. The flexural moduli of
the printed resin beams were not statistically significantly
different (Fig. 3). Specimen 811 had the highest flexural
modulus of 2.1 ±0.25 GPa, while specimen 100 had the
lowest flexural modulus of 1.7 ±0.14 GPa. The Vickers
hardness of the 3D-printed cubes showed that specimen
640 had the highest value of 24.6 ±1.8 HV, while spec-
imen 271 had the lowest surface hardness of 14.5 ±0.6
HV. In specimens containing 10% TEGDMA, specimens
containing more UDMA exhibited lower surface hard-
ness (Fig. 4).
The accuracies of the 3D-printed models revealed that
specimen 811 exhibited the lowest mean deviation value
of 0.000 ±0.051 mm from the master digital model, and
specimen 631 with a mean deviation value of 0.052
±0.101 mm was the second best. In contrast, specimen
271 had the largest average deviation of 0.094 ±0.152 mm
of all specimens. In specimens that contained 10% of
TEGDMA, specimens containing more UDMA exhibited
higher mean deviation (Fig. 5).
Figure 6 showed the MTT assays of L929 cells cultured
in the extracts of the 3D-printed cubes. The Y axis was
normalized to the negative control and labeled as
viability. Specimen 640 had the highest viability of 118.8
±5.7%, while specimen 451 had the lowest viability of
87.1 ±7.4%. Specimens containing no TEGDMA had
higher viability than the specimens containing 10%
TEGDMA. Nevertheless, all specimens were considered
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
4 Volume - Issue -

3.0

2.5
Flexural Modulus (GPa)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
100 820 640 811 631 451 271
Specimen Group
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviations of flexural modulus of
3D-printed beams. No statistical difference among specimens found.

30 * *

*
25
Microhardness (HV)

20

15

10 Figure 5. Accuracies of 3D-printed models presented as color mapping

5
0
100 820 640 811 631
Specimen Group
Figure 4. Mean and standard deviations of surface hardness of
3D-printed cubes. *P<.05.
nontoxic according to the ISO 10993-5 standard12 as
their relative viabilities were all above 70%.
DISCUSSION
The hypotheses that BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA
could be successfully formulated to make light-
polymerized 3D printing resins and that the printed
objects demonstrated accuracy and mechanical and bio-
logical properties that suggested their suitability for
dental use were accepted. Since 3D printing resins for
DLP printers must be precisely photopolymerized layer
by layer to form the objects, they must have an adequate
flow (low viscosity) during the printing process.
Although BisGMA is the most commonly used
of 3D deviations from master digital model. SD, standard deviation.
methacrylate monomer in dental composite resins, its
high viscosity limits its application in 3D printing. In this
451 271 study, BisEMA, an analog of BisGMA, was therefore
chosen. The absence of the hydroxyl group in BisEMA
significantly decreases its viscosity and makes this
monomer a good candidate for 3D printing.7,8 To create
the initial strength of the polymerized resin, UDMA was
selected as the second copolymer because UDMA has a
maximum polymerization rate 3-fold higher than that of
BisGMA.8 Furthermore, TEGDMA was incorporated to
adjust the viscosity of the formulated resins. Only 10% of
TEGDMA was proposed, as the diluent comonomer
could adjust viscosity in logarithmic fashion13 and
excessive TEGDMA might adversely affect the properties
of the matrix by increasing its cytotoxicity and polymer-
ization shrinkage.14
In the preliminary tests, resin mixtures with viscosity
exceeding 1500 cP led to voids or missing layers during
printing. Therefore, resin formulations that have viscos-
ities less than 1500 cP were further supplemented
with a colorless UV-sensitive photoinitiator with an
absorption peak around 350 to 420 nm.15-17

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Lin et al

- 2019
140 * printing is not completely polymerized inside the tank;
120
Viability (% Control)
100
80
60
40
20
0 based interim restorative materials.30 Similarly, the flex-
1
1
0
nt ve
nt ve
81
63
45
27
10
82
64
co ti
co siti
Po l
l
ro
ro
ga
Ne
Specimen Group
Figure 6. Mean and standard deviations of MTT cytotoxicity tests of 3D-
printed cubes. *P<.05. MTT, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-
diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay.
Although camphorquinone (CQ) is the most frequently
used photoinitiator in dental resins, its polymerization
efficiency and yellowish color might limit its application
in 3D printing.17,18 Another shortcoming is that CQ has
an absorption peak at 420 to 520 nm visible light, which
induces deeper polymerization than with UV light.6,7,17
Concerning the accuracy of the z-axis, a photoinitiator
for UV light photoinitiation has been commonly cho-
sen.19 Furthermore, UV absorbers have been supple-
mented in the resins to control the penetration depth of
light.20-22 In this study, metal oxides and silicon dioxide
fillers were used.
BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA are all bifunctional
monomers. A light-polymerized resin with DC smaller
than 50% would suggest that unreacted free monomers
are present.23,24 The DC of the 3D-printed cubes ranged
between 25% and 50% (Fig. 1), which likely denoted free
monomers. Unreacted monomers could leach out and
cause cell death. These phenomena, however, were not
observed for the printed specimens in the cytotoxicity
tests. One possible explanation was that after post-
polymerization, the space between the polymer chains of
the cube surfaces was small enough to prevent the
monomers from leaching out. Another possible expla-
nation was that the maximum penetration depth of the
infrared beam from the spectrometer is only 10 mm,
which could only represent the absorption information of
the superficial layers of the resin cubes. It is suspected
that postprinting isopropanol wash and postprinting UV
treatment might cause nonmonotonic spatial conversion
of the resin matrix. Future studies to explore the 2D map
of DC on the 3D-printed objects are needed.19,25
The mechanical properties of the composite resins are
related to the DC of resins.26-29 Frontal conversion in 3D
Lin et al
5
therefore, intense postprinting UV exposure is indicated
to raise the DC and exhaust any residual photoinitiator.19
In this study, specimen 271 had the highest DC, and
flexural strength had the lowest surface hardness of all
specimens (Figs. 2, 4). These findings could be explained
by the presence of TEGDMA and higher UDMA content
in the resin because the flexible ester bond located in
UDMA, compared with the rigid benzoic ring of BisEMA,
could significantly reduce the hardness. The flexural
strengths of the 3D-printed resins ranged from 60 MPa
to 90 MPa and are comparable with PMMA and bisacryl-
ural moduli, ranging from 1.7 GPa to 2.1 GPa, were
better than those of PMMA and only slightly lower than
those of bisacryl-based interim restorative materials.30
Accordingly, these formulated resins may be used to
make interim restorations, denture bases, occlusal de-
vices, custom trays, record bases, surgical guides, and
dental casts by 3D printing.5
The accuracy of the printed objects is correlated with
the precise Z-axis displacements of the 3D printer and the
front polymerization kinetics of formulated resins.19 Resin
matrixes are usually doped with TiO2 to limit the UV
penetration depth, which improves the resolution of
printed objects in the Z-axis and results in better shape
formation.31 In this study, only 0.5% of TiO2 was
used since high TiO2 concentrations may cause agglom-
eration.31-33 Specimen 811 showed the best overall accu-
racy of 0.000 ±0.051 mm (Fig. 5). The 0.051-mm
discrepancy might be excessive for definitive restorations.
However, this is acceptable for interim crowns because the
discrepancy could easily be corrected at chairside if
necessary. Furthermore, the mechanical and biological
properties of specimen 811 were comparable with those of
the interim restoration materials currently used, denoting
the potential of these resins for future clinical trials.
Limitations of the current study include that only
the accuracy of a single prepared tooth was examined.
The accuracy of the 3D-printed object is correlated with
the dimensions of the 3D designs, printing orientation
and layer thickness, light intensity and penetration
depth, and postprinting UV treatment;5 therefore, future
research is required to calibrate and correct the distortion
in DLP printing.4,5,25 Additionally, as resin color setting
might also affect the accuracy and mechanical and bio-
logical properties of the printed objects, the printing resin
may need to be fine-tuned for clinical use.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this in vitro study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. BisEMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA doped with various
fillers can be used to formulate 3D printing resins,
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
6 Volume
and the 3D-printed objects showed properties
comparable with those made from commercially
available dental resin materials.
2. Specimen 811 (80% BisEMA, 10% UDMA, 10%
TEGDMA) providing high accuracy was considered
the overall best resin formula for future clinical use.
Its composition can be further fine-tuned for
different applications.
REFERENCES
1. Yao J, Li J, Wang Y, Huang H. Comparison of the flexural strength and
marginal accuracy of traditional and CAD/CAM interim materials before and
after thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:649-57.
2. Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Guth JF. Evaluation of me-
chanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM
composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2015;55:1-11.
3. Penate L, Basilio J, Roig M, Mercade M. Comparative study of interim ma-
terials for direct fixed dental prostheses and their fabrication with CAD/CAM
technique. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:248-53.
4. Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among
expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 2016;32:54-64.
5. Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for
processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic
dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-58.
6. Ruyter IE, Oysaed H. Conversion in different depths of ultraviolet and visible
light activated composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40:179-92.
7. dos Santos GB, Alto RV, Filho HR, da Silva EM, Fellows CE. Light trans-
mission on dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2008;24:571-6.
8. Lemon MT, Jones MS, Stansbury JW. Hydrogen bonding interactions in
methacrylate monomers and polymers. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007;83:734-46.
9. Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Froes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers
used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and
water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J 2012;23:508-14.
10. Goncalves F, Kawano Y, Pfeifer C, Stansbury JW, Braga RR. Influence of
BisGMA, TEGDMA, and BisEMA contents on viscosity, conversion, and
flexural strength of experimental resins and composites. Eur J Oral Sci
2009;117:442-6.
11. Goodacre CJ, Campagni WV, Aquilino SA. Tooth preparations for complete
crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:363-76.
12. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9693-1. Dentistry
compatibility testing. Part 1: Metal-ceramic systems. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization; 2012. ISO Store Order: OP-184149 (Date:
2017-06-09). Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html.
13. Dickens SH, Stansbury JW, Choi KM, Floyd CJE. Photopolymerization ki-
netics of methacrylate dental resins. Macromolecules 2003;36:6043-53.
14. Ellakwa A, Cho N, Lee IB. The effect of resin matrix composition on the
polymerization shrinkage and rheological properties of experimental dental
composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:1229-35.
15. Pongprueksa P, Miletic V, Janssens H, Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J,
Godderis L, et al. Degree of conversion and monomer elution of CQ/amine
and TPO adhesives. Dent Mater 2014;30:695-701.
16. Santini A, Miletic V, Swift MD, Bradley M. Degree of conversion and
microhardness of TPO-containing resin-based composites cured by polywave
and monowave LED units. J Dent 2012;40:577-84.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
17. Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Prahl SA, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL. Curing
efficiency of dental resin composites formulated with camphorquinone
or trimethylbenzoyl-diphenyl-phosphine oxide. Dent Mater 2012;28:
392-7.
18. Wessels M, Leyhausen G, Volk J, Geurtsen W. Oxidative stress is responsible
for genotoxicity of camphorquinone in primary human gingival fibroblasts.
Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1705-10.
19. Vitale A, Cabral JT. Frontal conversion and uniformity in 3D printing by
photopolymerisation. Materials (Basel) 2016;9:760.
20. Chia HN, Wu BM. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. J Biol Eng
2015;9:4.
21. Heller C, Schwentenwein M, Russmueller G, Varga F, Stampfl J, Liska R.
Vinyl esters: low cytotoxicity monomers for the fabrication of biocompatible
3D scaffolds by lithography based additive manufacturing. J Polym Sci A
Polym Chem 2009;49:6941-54.
22. Melchels FP, Feijen J, Grijpma DW. A review on stereolithography and its
applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 2010;31:6121-30.
23. Ferracane JL. Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral
Rehabil 1994;21:441-52.
24. Pongprueksa P, De Munck J, Duca RC, Poels K, Covaci A, Hoet P, et al.
Monomer elution in relation to degree of conversion for different types of
composite. J Dent 2015;43:1448-55.
25. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS,
et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge
dental materials. Dent Mater 2018;34:192-200.
26. Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the
setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:11-4.
27. Li J, Li H, Fok AS, Watts DC. Multiple correlations of material parameters of
light-cured dental composites. Dent Mater 2009;25:829-36.
28. Ferracane JL, Greener EH. The effect of resin formulation on the degree of
conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorative resins. J Biomed
Mater Res 1986;20:121-31.
29. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal break-
down of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997;76:
1508-16.
30. Balkenhol M, Mautner MC, Ferger P, Wostmann B. Mechanical properties of
provisional crown and bridge materials: chemical-curing versus dual-curing
systems. J Dent 2008;36:15-20.
31. Chang WT, Hsu HJ, Jiang CP, Lee SY, Lin YM. Effects of titanium dioxide and
tartrazine lake on Z-axis resolution and physical properties of resins printed
by visible-light 3D printers. Rapid Prototyping J 2018;24:160-5.
32. Han Y, Kiat-amnuay S, Powers JM, Zhao Y. Effect of nano-oxide concen-
tration on the mechanical properties of a maxillofacial silicone elastomer.
J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:465-73.
33. Vallo CI. Flexural strength distribution of a PMMA-based bone cement.
J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:226-36.
Corresponding author:
Dr Shyh-Yuan Lee
Department of Dentistry
National Yang-Ming University
No 155, Sec 2, Li-Nong St
Beitou District
Taipei
TAIWAN
Email: sylee@ym.edu.tw
Copyright © 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.002
Lin et al