Table 9.
Surface roughness (SR) test results.
| Author and Year | SR of Conventional Material Before Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | SR of Conventional Material After Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | SR of CAD/CAM Milled Materials Before Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | SR of CAD/CAM Milled Materials after Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | SR of 3D-Printed Materials before Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | SR of 3D-Printed Materials after Surface Treatment (Ra in μm) | Parameters of the Clinical Simulation | Exposure Medium Causing Change in SR | Measuring Device | Authors Suggestions/Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simoneti et al., 2022 [53] | Before polishing (A) Dencor (PMMA): 4.8 ± 0.6 (B) Yprov Bisacryl (Bis-acryl resin) 1.5 ± 0.3 |
After polishing (A) Dencor (PMMA): 0.9 ± 0.2 (B) Yprov Bisacryl (Bis-acryl resin) 0.7 ± 0.1 |
N/A | N/A | Before polishing (C) PA2201 (SLS resin) 6.2 ± 0.6 (D) Gray Resin (SLA resin) 1.5 ± 0.4 |
After polishing (C) PA2201 (SLS resin) 1.2 ± 0.3 (D) Gray Resin (SLA resin) 0.7 ± 0.1 |
Polishing | N/A | Contact profiler (SJ-201; MitutoyoInc) |
Ra after polishing: 3D-Printed SLS > conventional PMMA > Conventional bisacrylic = 3D printed SLA Significant reduction in SR after polishing. |
| Tas¸ın et al., 2021 [48] | Polishing (A) Temdent Classic (PMMA): 0.52 ± 0.09 (B) Protemp 4 (Bis-acrylic): 0.31 ± 0.04 |
Polishing + Surface Sealant (A) Temdent Classic (PMMA): 0.43 ± 0.07 (B) Protemp 4 (Bis-acrylic): 0.29 ± 0.05 |
Polishing (C) Duo Cad (PMMA): 0.35 ± 0.07 |
Polishing + Surface Sealant (C) Duo Cad (PMMA): 0.32 ± 0.06 |
Polishing (D) Temporis (Hybrid composite): 0.23 ± 0.04 |
Polishing + Surface Sealant (D) Temporis (Hybrid composite): 0.23 ± 0.03 |
Polishing and surface sealant | N/A | Contact profilometer (MarSurf PS10; Mahr GmbH) |
Ra after polishing only: Conventional PMMA > CAD/CAM Milled PMMA > Conventional Bisacrylic > 3D-Printed hybrid composite Significant reduction in SR after application of surface sealant for all groups except in 3D-printed materials. |
| Atria et al., 2020 [42] | Ra before: (A) Marche (1.3 mm): 0.22 ± 0.01 Marche (0.6 mm): 0.26 ± 0.02 (B) Protemp (1.3 mm): 0.18 ± 0.01 Portemp (0.6 mm): 0.20 ± 0.02 Ra after Thermocycling: (A) Marche (1.3 mm): 0.31 ± 0.02 Marche (0.6 mm): 0.31 ± 0.02 (B) Protemp (1.3 mm): 0.23 ± 0.01 Portemp (0.6 mm): 0.25 ± 0.02 Δ Ra (A) Marche (1.3 mm): 0.09 ± 0.02 Marche (0.6 mm): 0.05 ± 0.02 (B) Protemp (1.3 mm): 0.05 ± 0.02 Portemp (0.6 mm): 0.04 ± 0.02 |
Ra before: (C) TelioCAD (1.3 mm): 0.20 ± 0.02 TelioCAD (0.6 mm): 0.20 ± 0.02 Ra after Thermocycling: (C) TelioCAD (1.3 mm): 0.19 ± 0.01 TelioCAD (0.6 mm): 0.20 ± 0.01 Δ Ra (C) TelioCAD (1.3 mm): −0.01 ± 0.02 TelioCAD (0.6 mm): 0.00 ± 0.01 |
Ra before: (C) Raydent (1.3 mm): 0.26 ± 0.03 Raydent (0.6 mm): 0.21 ± 0.02 Ra after Thermocycling: (C) Raydent (1.3 mm): 0.54 ± 0.03 Raydent (0.6 mm): 0.60 ± 0.03 Δ Ra (C) Raydent (1.3 mm): 0.28 ± 0.02 Raydent (0.6 mm): 0.38 ± 0.03 |
Polishing | Thermocycling: 6000 cycles at 5–55 °C |
Rugosimeter (SRT 1200; PCE instruments) | Δ Ra: 3D-Printed hybrid composite > Conventional PMMA > Conventional Bis-acryl resin > CAD/CAM PMMA. |
|||
| Myagmar et al., 2021 [47] | Ra Before Wear test 0.26 ± 0.02 |
After wear test (A) 30,000 cycles: 0.92 ± 0.09 (B) 60,000 cycles: 1.63 ± 0.44 |
Before Wear test 0.19 ± 0.03 |
After wear test (A) 30,000 cycles: 0.88 ± 0.05 (B) 60,000 cycles: 1.27 ± 0.49 |
Before Wear test 0.13 ± 0.01 |
After wear test (A) 30,000 cycles: 0.48 ± 0.06 (B) 60,000 cycles: 0.58 ± 0.06 |
Polishing | Simulated chewing subjected to 30,000 or 60,000 cycles of chewing simulation against the metal abrader | Confocal laser scanning microscope (LSM 800 MAT, Zeiss) | Ra after wearing: Conventional PMMA > CAD/CAM Milled PMMA > 3D-Printed PMMA |