FUNDAMENTAL

RESEARCH
Influence of Different Postpolymerization
Strategies and Artificial Aging on
Hardness of 3D-Printed Resin Materials:
An In Vitro Study
Marcel Reymus, Dr Med Dent
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital,
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Bogna Stawarczyk, Prof Dr Rer Biol Hum, Dipl-Ing (FH), MSc

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital,
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Purpose: To investigate the influence of different postpolymerization strategies and artificial aging
periods on the Martens hardness parameters of 3D-printed resin materials indicated for temporary use.
Materials and Methods: Disks made of four 3D-printed resin materials (n = 30 each) were additively
manufactured and postpolymerized with three different postpolymerization devices (n = 10 specimens of
each material per device). Disks cut from a prefabricated milling material served as a control. The Martens
parameters (ie, Martens hardness [HM] and indentation modulus [EIT]) were measured initially and after
14- and 28-day storage periods in 37°C distilled water. The data were statistically analyzed using univariate
analysis, Kolmogorov Smirnov test, and nonparametric tests, including Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney
U, and Wilcoxon tests (α = .05). Results: The highest impact on the Martens parameters was exerted
by material (HM: ηP2 = 0.957, EIT: ηp2 = 0.967, P < .001), followed by postpolymerization device (HM:
ηP2 = 0.557, EIT: ηP2 = 0.496, P < .001) and duration of water storage (HM: ηP2= 0.068, EIT: ηP2= 0.038,
P < .001). The values for HM ranged between 108 and 282 N/mm2, and for EIT between 2.89 and
7.73 kN/mm2. The materials 3Delta Etemp and Temp PRINT showed the highest HM and EIT values regardless
of the postpolymerization device and water storage duration (P < .001). In contrast, NextDent C&B, followed
by Freeprint Temp, showed the lowest HM and EIT values (P < .001). The milled control group Telio CAD
ranged between the two lower groups. Conclusion: Postpolymerization strategy has a high impact on the
mechanical properties of 3D-printed resin materials. Materials with a higher filler content showed better
results regarding the Martens parameters. Such materials might be an alternative to conventional materials
for the milling procedure. Int J Prosthodont 2020;33:634–640. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6634

E
Correspondence to:
Dr Marcel Reymus
Department of Conservative
Dentistry and Periodontology
University Hospital
LMU Munich, Goethestrasse 70
80336 Munich, Germany
Fax: +49 89 4400 59302
Email: mreymus@
dent.med.uni-muenchen.de
Submitted July 16, 2019;
accepted September 14, 2019.
©2020 by Quintessence
Publishing Co Inc.
specially in the last decade, new materials and treatment options—including com-
puter-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM)—have dra-
matically changed traditional workflows.1 CAD/CAM technology is widely used
by dentists and dental technicians since it ensures dental services of high quality.2,3
The CAM process is currently mostly performed as a subtractive method by which
the designed object is milled from prefabricated blocks. Those industrially fabricated,
standardized materials ensure high biocompatibility and consistent quality.4 However,
this process wastes as much as 90% of the material.5 Recently, three-dimensional
(3D) printing, or additive manufacturing (AM), has been increasingly promoted for its
use in dentistry. The term “3D printing” encompasses a variety of different technolo-
gies, ranging from metal and ceramic sintering to resin-processing systems.6 However,
they are all additive methods, meaning the object is built up layer by layer, which
reduces the amount of wasted material. Several dental applications for AM have been
presented recently, including dental casts,7 surgical or endodontic guides,8,9 occlu-
sal devices,10 and educational models.11,12 The most widespread AM technology in

634 The International Journal of Prosthodontics

© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.

the dental field is currently stereolithography. For this
method, liquid resin is selectively polymerized by either a
single laser spot (SLA) or by a light beam (DLP) in order
to finally create the desired object. Several materials are
available for stereolithography, including materials for
the applications mentioned and also materials for long-
term interim fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), which are
used, for example, to test a new occlusal relationship
in patients requiring extensive prosthetic treatment.13
Such AM restorations might represent an alternative to
manually fabricated or milled restorations by reducing
the amount of time a dental technician has to spend on
fabrication. Information about the mechanical proper-
ties of 3D-printed restorations is scarce. Consequently,
the purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the in-
fluence of postpolymerization strategy and artificial ag-
ing on the Martens parameters—ie, Martens hardness
(HM) and indentation modulus (EIT)—of different 3D-
printed resin materials indicated for long-term interim
use as FDPs.
Since these are photosensitive resins, the correct post-
polymerization strategy is essential to ensure adequate
mechanical properties and biocompatibility.14 The post-
polymerization devices proposed for stereolithography
differ in their light-emitting technologies and include
light-emitting diodes (LEDs), ultraviolet light (UV), and
flashlights. Depending on their emitted wavelength,
different postpolymerization strategies might result in
different Martens parameters.
Dental restorations are exposed to a wet environment
during their service in the oral cavity, which strongly in-
fluences polymeric networks,15 altering their mechani-
cal properties because of water uptake or elution of
ingredients.16 When a material’s mechanical proper-
ties are investigated, its behavior under artificial aging
should be evaluated.17,18
The measurement of Martens hardness is appropri-
ate for characterizing the elastic-plastic behavior of
polymeric materials and is suitable for disclosing sur-
face degradations induced by prolonged water stor-
age.19 Furthermore, hardness values may be correlated
with the degree of conversion and the filler content
of polymeric materials.20–24 However, the indentation
modulus is a suitable measurement for evaluating the
morphology and deformation behavior of materials.25
The recorded load-displacement curves give further in-
formation on the mechanical behavior of the material.
The plateau of the curve demonstrates the material’s
creep characteristic, which can be correlated with clini-
cal performance.26 A high creep characteristic tends to
disturb the bonding interface between the tooth struc-
ture and the restoration27 and may lead to the uncoil-
ing of polymer chains.28 A higher filler content is said
to positively influence the creep characteristic of resin-
based materials.29,30
© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
Reymus/Stawarczyk
The null hypothesis of this study was that no differ-
ence would be found among the different materials,
the different postpolymerization devices, or the time of
water storage regarding HM and EIT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The 3D-printed materials tested and the CAD/CAM
control (N = 130) are presented in Table 1. For each ma-
terial, 30 disks (20 mm in diameter and 5 mm in thick-
ness) were additively manufactured by using a digital
light processing (DLP) printer (D20II, Rapid Shape). For
all materials, the layer thickness was set to 50 µm, as
specified by the manufacturers. For the control group,
10 disks of the same thickness were manually cut from
prefabricated blocks. The additively manufactured
specimens were cleaned according to the manufac-
turers’ specifications: NextDent C&B (NDT), Freeprint
Temp (FPT), and Temp PRINT (GCT) were cleaned for
5 minutes in an ultrasonic activated bath (RK 102 H,
SONOREX SUPER, Bandelin) with 96% ethanol (Otto
Fischar); and 3Delta Etemp (3DT) was exposed to cen-
trifugal force (Allegra X-15R, Beckmann Coulter) for
3 minutes at 1,800 rounds per minute. Subsequently,
the specimens were postpolymerized using the devices
stated in Table 2 (n = 10 specimens per device). After
postprocessing, the disks were embedded in autopo-
lymerizing acrylic resin (ScandiQuick A and B, ScanDia)
and grounded half automatically (Tegramin-20, Struers)
using consecutive silicon carbide papers up to P2000
under constant water cooling.
The Martens parameters were recorded longitudinally
initially and after storage for 14 or 28 days in a bath of
distilled water at a temperature of 37°C using an incuba-
tor (Heracell 150, Kulzer). For each measurement, every
specimen was investigated at three different locations.
HM and EIT were determined by using a Martens
hardness machine (ZHU 0.2, ZwickRoell). The specimens
were loaded with a Vickers diamond indenter (α = 136
degrees) with increasing forces of up to a maximum of
9.807 N, which was held for 10 seconds. The minimum
indenter depth was always greater than 5 µm. HM and
EIT values were calculated (TestXpert V12.3 Master;
ZwickRoell) using the following equations:
F = F
HM =
As(h) 26.43 × h2
2√Ap(hc) (1 – ν2i) –1
EIT = (1 – ν2s) = ( – )
√πS Ei
HM was measured in N/mm2; F (test force) in N;
(surface area of the indenter at distance h from the
trip) in mm2; h (indentation depth under applied test force)
Volume 33, Number 6, 2020 635
 Fundamental Research

Table 1   Summary of Materials, Compositions, Manufacturers, and Lot Numbers

Brands 3D printer Matrix Filler Manufacturer Lot no.
3D-printed NextDent C&B D20II, Methacrylic oligomers > 90%, None NextDent XK044N01
materials Rapid Shape phosphine oxides < 3%
Freeprint Temp D20II, Methacrylatesa Not stateda Detax 200703
Rapid Shape
3Delta Etemp D20II, Methacrylatesa Siliciumdioxid, Deltamed 0124
Rapid Shape dental glass (50 wt%)b
Temp PRINT D20II, Urethane dimethacrylate 50 –< 75%, Quartz 10 –< 25wt% GC Europe 1803021
Rapid Shape 2,2'-ethylenedioxydiethyl
dimethacrylate 10 < 25%
Control Telio CAD Polymethylmethacrylates > 98% None Ivoclar Vivadent WW7588
group
aNo further information available from manufacturer.
bAs stated by the manufacturer.

Table 2   Summary of Postpolymerization Devices: Technology, Duration, Wavelength, and Manufacturer
Brand Technology Duration Wavelength Manufacturer
LC-3DPrint Box Ultraviolet light 30 min Range 315–550 nm, peaks at NextDent
approximately 360 and 435 nm
Otoflash G171 Flashlight, nitrogen atmosphere 2 processes of 2,000 flashes Range 300–700 nm, peaks at NK-Optik
approximately 480 and 530 nm
Labolight DUO Light-emitting diode 2 processes of 3 min Range 380–510 nm, peaks at GC Europe
approximately 395 and 475 nm

Initial
in mm; EIT in kN/mm2; Ei (elastic mod-
10
14 d
ulus of indenter) in N/mm2; Ap(hc)
8 28 d
(projected contact area under load)
6 in N/mm2; vs and vi Poisson ratio with
vs = 0.35 and vi = 0.3; and S (contact
EIT

4
* stiffness evaluated from the force re-
2 moval curve). The load displacement
0 curve of each measurement was re-
a NDT FPT 3DT EXT TC
corded. Additionally, the correspond-
ing load-displacement curve was
Initial recorded for each measurement.
10
14 d The data were statistically ana-
8
* 28 d lyzed using univariate analysis,
6 * Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and non-
EIT

4 * * parametric tests including Kruskal-

2 Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and
Wilcoxon tests (IBM SPSS Statistics
0
b NDT FPT 3DT EXT TC v. 25; adjusted by Bonferroni correc-
tion, α = .05/78 = .0006).
Initial
10 RESULTS
* 14 d
8 28 d
The descriptive statistics are sum-
6
marized in Table 3, and the corre-
EIT

* *
4 *
sponding box plots are presented
2 in Figs 1 and 2. According to the
0 univariate analysis, the highest in-
NDT FPT 3DT EXT TC
c fluence on HM and EIT was shown
Fig 1   Box plots of EIT values (in kN/mm2)
for the different tested materials, aging levels, and by material (partial eta squared:
postpolymerization devices. (a) Printbox. (b) Otoflash. (c) Labolight. HM: ηP² = 0.957, EIT: ηP² = 0.967,

636 The International Journal of Prosthodontics

© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
 Reymus/Stawarczyk

P < .001), followed by postpolymer- Initial

ization device (HM: ηP² = 0.557, EIT: 400 14 d
ηP² = 0.496, P < .001) and duration 28 d
300
of water storage (HM: ηP² = 0.068,
EIT: ηP² = 0.038, P < .001). The in-

HM
200
teraction effect of the binary and *
100
trinary combinations of the three
independent parameters (mate- 0
NDT FPT 3DT EXT TC
rial, postpolymerization device, a
and duration of water storage) was
also significant (HM: ηP² = 0.014 to Initial
0.180, EIT: ηP² = 0.029 to 0.138, P 400 14 d
= .015 to P < .001). Kolmogorov- 28 d
Smirnov test indicated evidence of 300
the violation of normality assump- HM
200
tion regarding the distribution of * * *
*
the data (P < .05). Therefore, the 100
data were analyzed separately ac- 0
cording to the hypothesis using NDT FPT 3DT EXT TC
b
nonparametric statistical tests.
3DT followed by GCT showed the
Initial
highest HM and EIT values regardless
400 * 14 d
of postpolymerization device and
28 d
water storage duration (P < .001). 300
In contrast, NDT followed by FPT *
HM

showed the lowest HM and EIT values
(P < .001). The milled control group
(Telio CAD [TC]) ranged between the
latter two homogenous groups.
Initially and after 28 days of wa-
ter storage, specimens postpo-
lymerized with the Labolight device
showed lower Martens parameters
than those postpolymerized with
the Otoflash or Printbox devices,
regardless of material (P < .001).
The same significant differences
were observed for the FPT group
after 14 days of water storage (P
< .001). Specimens postpolymer-
ized with Labolight and stored for
14 days showed higher EIT values
for NDT (P = .045) and higher HM
values for 3DT (P = .023) than those
postpolymerized with Printbox.
In the GCT group after 14 days of
water storage, specimens postpo-
lymerized with Labolight, followed
by Printbox, showed lower Martens
parameters than specimens postpo-
lymerized with Otoflash (P < .001).
In the groups stored for 14 days, no
impact of postpolymerization device
was observed for 3DT on EIT values
(P = .084) or HM values (P = .701).
200
100
0
c
NDT FPT
Fig 2   Box plots of HM values (in N/mm2) for the different tested materials, aging levels, and
postpolymerization devices. (a) Printbox. (b) Otoflash. (c) Labolight.
For NTD and FPT, the lowest Mar-
tens parameters were observed af-
ter 14 days of water storage, and
the highest Martens parameters
were observed for nonstored speci-
mens (P < .001) when using the
Printbox or Otoflash. For NTD and
GCT, which were postpolymerized
with Labolight, the initial Martens
parameters were lower than those
of the stored ones (P < .001). For
FPT postpolymerized with Labo-
light, specimens stored for 28 days
showed higher values than non-
stored ones and those stored for 14
days (P = .001). For 3DT and GCT
postpolymerized with Printbox or
Otoflash, higher Martens parame-
ters were observed after 14 days of
water storage than initially or after
storage for 28 days (P < .001). For
*
3DT EXT TC
3DT postpolymerized with Labo-
light, higher Martens parameters
were measured after 28 days of
water storage than for nonstored
specimens (P = .022). In the control
group, the lowest Martens param-
eters were observed after 14-day
storage, and the highest for non-
stored specimens (P < .001).
DISCUSSION
An elastic-plastic behavior could be
recorded for all materials. However,
as significant differences regarding
the Martens parameters among the
different materials were found in
this study, the null hypothesis was
rejected. In general, 3DT and GCT
showed the highest HM and EIT val-
ues, and FPT and NDT the lowest.

Volume 33, Number 6, 2020 637

© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
 Fundamental Research

Table 3   Mean ± Standard Deviation Martens Parameters for the Materials in Each Subgroup (HM in N/mm2,
EIT in kN/mm2)
Material/Martens parameter

Water NDT FPT 3DT

storage HM EIT HM EIT HM EIT
Postpolymerization device: Printbox
 Initial *134 ± 2.8a,2,C *3.37 ± 0.06a,2,C 156 ± 4.8b,2,C *3.87 ± 0.10b,2,C *179 ± 13.6d,2,B 7.70 ± 0.33d,2,B
  14 d *126 ± 2.5a,1,A *3.28 ± 0.06a,2,A *148 ± 4.6b,2,A *3.72 ± 0.13b,2,A *265 ± 11.7c,2,A *7.35 ± 0.40d,1,A
  28 d *130 ± 2.3a,2,B *3.33 ± 0.08a,2,B *152 ± 6.5b,2,B *3.79 ± 0.11b,2,AB *273 ± 5.8e,2,B *7.61 ± 0.16d,2,B
Postpolymerization device: Otoflash
 Initial *132 ± 2.7a,2,C *3.35 ± 0.08a,2,AB *157 ± 2.7b,2,C *3.88 ± 0.06b,2,C 282 ± 6.6d,2,B *7.71 ± 0.41d,2,B
  14 d *125 ± 3.2a,1,A *3.24 ± 0.12a,1,2,A *149 ± 4.0b,2,A *3.75 ± 0.08b,2,A *257 ± 22.3d,1,2,A *7.20 ± 0.72d,1,A
  28 d *129 ± 2.5a,2,B *3.39 ± 0.29a,2,B *151 ± 2.0b,2,B *3.80 ± 0.06b,2,B 276 ± 5.5d,2,B *7.73 ± 0.13d,2,B
Postpolymerization device: Labolight
 Initial *112 ± 6.6a,1,A *2.93 ± 0.16a,1,A *114 ± 7.9a,1,A *2.98 ± 0.18a,1,A *232 ± 22.3b,1,A *6.58 ± 0.62c,1,A
  14 d *124 ± 19.7 a,1,B *3.16 ± 0.29a,1,B 108 ± 8.9a,b,1,A *2.89 ± 0.18b,1,A *247 ± 36.1c,1,AB *6.94 ± 0.90c,1,A,B
  28 d *123 ± 3.4a,1,B *3.19 ± 0.10a,1,B *120 ± 9.5a,1,B *3.06 ± 0.16a,1,B *249 ± 12.5c,1,A *7.15 ± 0.34c,1,A
NDT = NextDent C&B; FPT = Freeprint Temp; 3DT = 3Delta Etemp; GCT = Temp PRINT; TC = Telio CAD; HM = Martens hardness; EIT = indentation modulus.
Values marked with the same superscript letter or number are not significantly different from each other.
a,b,c,d,eSignificant differences between the materials within aging level and polymerization device.
1,2,3Significant differences between the postpolymerization devices within aging level and material.
A,B,CSignificant differences between aging duration within polymerization device and 3D material.

*Not normally distributed groups.

The milled control group ranged between the two low-
er groups. This result might be explained by the filler
content integrated into 3DT and GCT. According to
the manufacturers, these resins are the only materials
with filler particles. A material’s hardness is one factor
in its ability to resist stress, such as from an antagonist
contact. Regarding the load displacement curves of the
tested materials (Fig 3a), different mechanical charac-
teristics can be recorded between the materials. The
curve peaks’ plateau indicates a material’s creep behav-
ior under indentation load. A higher creep might lead
to lasting deformation of a material due to long-term
mechanical stress from tooth clenching and grinding.
A lower creep tendency for 3DT than the other mate-
rials was recorded in this study. Again, this might be
explained by the filler content of this material. Taking
into account these results, filled resins for 3D printing
seem to be more favorable for long-term service than
not-filled ones. All tested materials are indicated as tem-
poraries, though the manufacturers do not state a spe-
cific duration of potential service time. The measured
Martens hardness is by far inferior to that of a CAD/
CAM resin composite.31 Nevertheless, the values ex-
ceed those of the PMMA control material. So, the ques-
tion arises: For what indications might such 3D-printed
temporary restorations be used? From a financial and
practical point of view, they do not seem to be an al-
ternative to a provisional restoration for 1 or 2 weeks
or until the final restoration is fabricated by a dental
technician. Rather, they seem to be suitable as long-
term temporary restorations for testing new occlusal
situations.
Significant differences between the tested postpo-
lymerization devices in terms of Martens parameters
were detected. Postpolymerization in the LED device re-
sulted in the lowest values, regardless of the duration of
water storage. The impact of the different postpolymer-
ization devices becomes clear from the load displace-
ment curves (Fig 3b). The creep characteristics of the
materials were higher after using the LED device than
after other postpolymerization devices. The control
material, however, showed a creep tendency compa-
rable to the LED-postpolymerized specimens. The fairly
strong correlation between the degree of conversion
and the hardness might indicate that the LED device
was less able to create a higher degree of conversion
than the flashlight or the UV light device. Nevertheless,
the working time of the UV light device was the high-
est at 30 minutes. This long postpolymerization period
might have positively influenced the polymerization of
the tested specimens. However, whether a comparable
working time would have contributed to the results
provided by the LED device in the same way is unclear.
Besides the operating time, the postpolymerization de-
vices differ greatly in their emitting wavelength spec-
tra. The flashlight operating device demonstrates the
broadest spectrum, thus stimulating a larger selection
of photoinitiators. This might explain why this device
resulted in results comparable to the UV light device,
though its working time was much less.
Objects printed using 3D printing are manufactured
layer by layer. As for all resin-based materials, the adhe-
sion and polymerization between the layers are decisive
for their mechanical properties. DLP printers polymerize

638 The International Journal of Prosthodontics

© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
 Reymus/Stawarczyk

12
a b cd e
10
GCT TC
HM EIT HM EIT 8

Force (N)
6
174 ± 8.2c,2,C *4.87 ± 0.16c,2,C 157 ± 4.9 *4.27 ± 0.13
*150 ± 10.1b,A *4.46 ± 0.20c,A 140 ± 4.5 *3.91 ± 0.11 4
*157 ± 7.1d,2,B *4.62 ± 0.16c,2,B 144 ± 2.8 *3.97 ± 0.07
2

*179 ± 11.8c,2,C *4.92 ± 0.30c,2,C 0

0 20 40 60
166 ± 8.9c,1,A *4.76 ± 0.20c,1,A
Indentation (µm)
*167 ± 8.9c,2,A *4.76 ± 0.27c,2,AB a

*121 ± 10.5a,1,A *3.41 ± 0.23b,1,A 12

*139 ± 15.3b,2,B *4.07 ± 0.45b,2,B
a bc d
*146 ± 13.3b,1,B *4.33 ± 0.25b,1,C 10

Force (N)
6

each layer on the bottom of the printer’s vat, which is 2

filled with resin. Consequently, the polymerization takes
place without the presence of oxygen, and thus no oxy-
gen inhibition layer could interfere with the adhesion
between the two layers. So, directly after the printing
process, additively manufactured objects demonstrate
a high degree of conversion, which is even increased
after the use of postpolymerization devices.32 The
adhesion between the layers is quite high, as demon-
strated by a study that investigated the fracture load of
a 3D-printed three-unit partial denture depending on
the building direction.33 Objects that are 3D printed are
anisotropic—this means that the mechanical properties
of such an object are dependent on the building direc-
tion with which it is manufactured.34 A force exerted
on the object can have different impacts if it acts either
perpendicular or parallel to the layers. In this study, the
force was applied perpendicular to the layers, as this is
supposed to yield the highest mechanical properties, as
stated by previous studies.35,36 The print layer thickness
was set to 50 µm, as specified by the manufacturers.
However, a recent study discovered that such pre-set-
tings for an SLA printer would not automatically match
the measured layer thickness as recorded under a scan-
ning electron microscope after the printing process.35
The question of such a discrepancy would also be true
for a DLP printer such as the one used in this study, and
this should be investigated in further studies.
FDPs are exposed to 100% humidity during their time
in service. According to the results of this study, wa-
ter storage seems to affect the mechanical properties
of the tested materials negatively. In general, Martens
0
0 20 40 60
b Indentation (µm)
Fig 3  Load displacement curves. (a) Postpolymerization device
Otoflash: a = 3DT; b = GCT; c = FPT; d = TC; e = NDT. (b) 3D-printed
resin material NextDent C&B: a = TC; b = Otoflash; c = Printbox;
d = Labolight.
parameters decreased after 14 days of water storage.
This phenomenon might be explained by an initial water
uptake and degradation of the resin matrix. The increase
of the Martens parameters after another 14 days of wa-
ter storage, however, is quite interesting. Such behavior
has been reported for direct resin materials before.37 For
this study, one could suppose that a subsequent post-
polymerization process provoked by the warm storage
medium would have taken place. This would mean that
the postpolymerization devices were unable to lead to
the highest polymerization rate possible. However, it re-
mains unclear how the values would change after a lon-
ger period of artificial aging. One might suppose that
the values would decline again, as demonstrated by the
study for the direct resin materials.37 Another study in-
vestigating a longer period of storage is needed. These
null hypotheses were also rejected.
The measured Martens parameters give an overview of
the important mechanical properties of resin-based mate-
rials, such as the elastic-plastic behavior, surface degrada-
tion induced by artificial aging, and deformation behavior
under force. Nevertheless, further parameters have to be

Volume 33, Number 6, 2020 639

© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
 Fundamental Research
investigated urgently for a more concrete comprehension
of the properties of 3D-printed resins. This study focused
especially on the influence of different postpolymeriza-
tion strategies on the Martens parameters.
The influence of a longer artificial aging method on
elastic modulus and tensile strength is essential for a
better understanding of this new class of materials and
should be the subject of future studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this in vitro study, the follow-
ing conclusions were drawn:
• The tested resins for additive manufacturing show
Martens parameters comparable with those of the
milled control group, with filled resins having better
results.
• The 3D-printed resins and the control group reacted
to water storage in a comparable way.
• Considering HM and EIT as the essential factors for
assessing the mechanical properties of materials,
3D-printed resins should offer an alternative to
conventional materials for interim service.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
  1. Lambert H, Durand JC, Jacquot B, Fages M. Dental biomaterials for chair-
side CAD/CAM: State of the art. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:486–495.
  2. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of
recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J
2008;204:505–511.
  3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of
crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J 2011;56(suppl 1):s97–s106.
  4. Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via
high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 2012;
28:529–534.
  5. Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrica-
tion of dental restorations: Current systems and future possibilities.
J Amer Dent Assoc 2006;137:1289–1296.
  6. Kessler A, Hickel R, Reymus M. 3D printing in dentistry—State of the art.
Oper Dent 2019. Epub ahead of print June 7.
  7. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility
of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping
techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108–115.
  8. Reyes A, Turkyilmaz I, Prihoda TJ. Accuracy of surgical guides made from
conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyp-
ing techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:295–303.
  9. Krastl G, Zehnder MS, Connert T, Weiger R, Kühl S. Guided endodontics:
A novel treatment approach for teeth with pulp canal calcification and
apical pathology. Dent Traumatol 2016;32:240–246.
10. Salmi M, Paloheimo KS, Tuomi J, Ingman T, Mäkitie A. A digital process
for additive manufacturing of occlusal splints: A clinical pilot study. J R
Soc Interface 2013;10:20130203.
11. Reymus M, Fotiadou C, Kessler A, Heck K, Hickel R, Diegritz C. 3D
printed replicas for endodontic education. Int Endod J 2019;52:123–130.
12. Reymus M, Fotiadou C, Hickel R, Diegritz C. 3D‐printed model
for hands‐on training in dental traumatology. Int Endod J
2018;51:1313–1319.
640 The International Journal of Prosthodontics
© 2020 BY QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO, INC. PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONAL USE ONLY.
NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER.
13. Güth JF, Edelhoff D, Ihloff H, Mast G. Complete mouth rehabilitation
after transposition osteotomy based on intraoral scanning: An experi-
mental approach. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:89–93.
14. Stansbury J, Idacavage M. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among
expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 2016;32:54–64.
15. Münchow EA, Ferreira AC, Machado RM, Ramos TS, Rodrigues-Junior
SA, Zanchi CH. Effect of acidic solutions on the surface degradation of a
micro-hybrid composite resin. Braz Dent J 2014;25:321–326.
16. Borges MA, Matos IC, Mendes LC, Gomes AS, Miranda MS. Degradation
of polymeric restorative materials subjected to a high caries challenge.
Dent Mater 2011;27:244–252.
17. Lohbauer U, Belli R, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in mechanical fatigue
degradation of dental resin composites. J Dent Res 2013;92:584–591.
18. Wendler M, Belli R, Valladares D, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Chairside
CAD/CAM materials. Part 3: Cyclic fatigue parameters and lifetime
predictions. Dent Mater 2018;34:910–921.
19. Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, Bull S, Rusby S, Wassell RW. Hardness mea-
sured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dent
Mater 2007;23:1079–1085.
20. Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion
during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent
Mater 1985;1:11–14.
21. Bouschlicher M, Rueggeberg FA, Wilson BM. Correlation of bottom-to-
top surface microhardness and conversion ratios for a variety of resin
composite compositions. Oper Dent 2004;29:698–704.
22. ISO 4049:2009. Dentistry—Polymer-based restorative materials. Ge-
neva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 2019.
23. Li Y, Swartz M, Phillips R, Moore B, Roberts TA. Effect of filler content
and size on properties of composites. J Dent Res 1985;64:1396–1401.
24. Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology
on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet
Dent 2002;87:642–649.
25. Bürgin S, Rohr N, Fischer J. Assessing degradation of composite resin
cements during artificial aging by Martens hardness. Head Face Med
2017;13:9.
26. Baroudi K, Silikas N, Watts DC. Time‐dependent visco‐elastic creep and
recovery of flowable composites. Eur J Oral Sci 2007;115:517–521.
27. Watts DC. Elastic moduli and visco-elastic relaxation. J Dent 1994;22:
154–158.
28. Argon AS. A theory for the low-temperature plastic deformation of
glassy polymers. The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical
Experimental and Applied Physics 1973;28:839–865.
29. El-Safty S, Silikas N, Watts DC. Creep deformation of restorative resin-
composites intended for bulk-fill placement. Dent Mater 2012;28:
928–935.
30. Bapna MS, Mueller HJ, Knoeppel R. Compressive creep of dental com-
posites. J Dent Res 1985;64:1179–1184.
31. Hampe R, Lümkemann N, Sener B, Stawarczyk B. The effect of artificial
aging on Martens hardness and indentation modulus of different dental
CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;86:
191–198.
32. Reymus M, Lümkemann N, Stawarczyk B. 3D-printed material for
temporary restorations: Impact of print layer thickness and post-curing
method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:231–237.
33. Reymus M, Fabritius R, Kessler A, Hickel R, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B.
Fracture load of 3D-printed fixed dental prostheses compared with
milled and conventionally fabricated ones: The impact of resin material,
build direction, post-curing, and artificial aging—An in vitro study.
Clin Oral Investig 2019. Epub ahead of print May 24.
34. Väyrynen VO, Tanner J, Vallittu PK. The anisotropicity of the flexural
properties of an occlusal device material processed by stereolithography.
J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:811–817.
35. Alaqeel SM, Ramakrishnaiah R, Basavaraju RM, Kotha SB. Effect of 3D
printing direction and water storage on nano-mechanical properties
of 3D printed and auto-polymerized polymer with special emphasis on
printing layer interface. Mater Express 2019;9:351–357.
36. Unkovskiy A, Bui PHB, Schille C, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Huettig F, Spintzyk S.
Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional
accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin.
Dent Mater 2018;34:324–333.
37. Hahnel S, Henrich A, Bürgers R, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Investigation of
mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging
for one year. Oper Dent 2010;35:412–419.