BMC oral health · 2026
Investigation of the effects of mouthwashes on the surface properties of CAD/CAM blocks and 3D-printed resins.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Güvenç Büşra Gül, Durmuş Ezgi Atamer, Aşkın Ceren Tezer, Aydın Numan, Güvenç Berkay
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of mouthwashes with different formulations on the surface roughness, microhardness, and wettability properties of restorations fabricated from 3D-printed resins and CAD/CAM blocks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 specimens (n = 8) were prepared using SLA (Permanent Crown, Formlabs), DLP (Crowntec, Saremco) 3D printing resins, and a resin-based CAD/CAM composite block material (Tetric CAD). Finishing and polishing procedures were performed using a two-step diamond-impregnated polishing system. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured using confocal microscopy, microhardness was evaluated by the Vickers hardness test (VHN), and wettability was determined by measuring the contact angle using the sessile drop method. Following baseline measurements, the specimens were divided into five groups according to the immersion solution: alcohol-containing mouthwash, alcohol-free mouthwash, whitening mouthwash, hydrogen peroxide-containing whitening mouthwash, and a control group (artificial saliva). Surface roughness, microhardness, and wettability measurements were repeated after 24 h and 1 week of exposure.
RESULTS: Time significantly influenced surface roughness, contact angle, and microhardness (p < 0.001). Across all materials, exposure to mouthwashes resulted in increased surface roughness and decreased contact angle and microhardness values. The increase in surface roughness was most pronounced within the first 24 h, and significant differences were observed among all time points (p < 0.001). Material type significantly affected all outcome variables (p < 0.001), with the 3D-printed resin materials exhibiting greater surface roughness than the CAD/CAM block material. Mouthwash type significantly affected surface roughness (p = 0.001) and contact angle (p < 0.001), whereas no significant effect was observed on microhardness (p = 0.117). Among the tested mouthwashes, whitening formulations induced the greatest changes in surface roughness and contact angle.
CONCLUSIONS: Under the tested in vitro conditions, exposure to mouthwashes affected the surface properties of the evaluated restorative materials over time. These changes were more pronounced in the 3D-printed resin materials and whitening mouthwash groups.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mouthwash composition may produce material-dependent differences in the surface behavior of restorative materials. Therefore, the possible interaction between restorative material type and mouthwash composition should be considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 specimens (n = 8) were prepared using SLA (Permanent Crown, Formlabs), DLP (Crowntec, Saremco) 3D printing resins, and a resin-based CAD/CAM composite block material (Tetric CAD). Finishing and polishing procedures were performed using a two-step diamond-impregnated polishing system. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured using confocal microscopy, microhardness was evaluated by the Vickers hardness test (VHN), and wettability was determined by measuring the contact angle using the sessile drop method. Following baseline measurements, the specimens were divided into five groups according to the immersion solution: alcohol-containing mouthwash, alcohol-free mouthwash, whitening mouthwash, hydrogen peroxide-containing whitening mouthwash, and a control group (artificial saliva). Surface roughness, microhardness, and wettability measurements were repeated after 24 h and 1 week of exposure.
RESULTS: Time significantly influenced surface roughness, contact angle, and microhardness (p < 0.001). Across all materials, exposure to mouthwashes resulted in increased surface roughness and decreased contact angle and microhardness values. The increase in surface roughness was most pronounced within the first 24 h, and significant differences were observed among all time points (p < 0.001). Material type significantly affected all outcome variables (p < 0.001), with the 3D-printed resin materials exhibiting greater surface roughness than the CAD/CAM block material. Mouthwash type significantly affected surface roughness (p = 0.001) and contact angle (p < 0.001), whereas no significant effect was observed on microhardness (p = 0.117). Among the tested mouthwashes, whitening formulations induced the greatest changes in surface roughness and contact angle.
CONCLUSIONS: Under the tested in vitro conditions, exposure to mouthwashes affected the surface properties of the evaluated restorative materials over time. These changes were more pronounced in the 3D-printed resin materials and whitening mouthwash groups.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mouthwash composition may produce material-dependent differences in the surface behavior of restorative materials. Therefore, the possible interaction between restorative material type and mouthwash composition should be considered.