A Comparison of Two Different 3D Printing Ultraviolet Resins Versus Heat Polymerizable Denture Base Resin For Retention and Fracture Toughness: An in Vivo Study

Abstract

Statement of Problem: While traditional polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) remains a global baseline for complete denture fabrication, its structural limitations regarding impact fracturing and localized chairside adaptation persist. Newer additive manufacturing photopolymer techniques (such as SLA and DLP technology) promise superior mucosal adaptation, yet detailed clinical records contrasting their structural longevity and tissue retention remain limited.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the clinical retention forces and structural fracture toughness of two distinct ultraviolet (UV) cured 3D-printed denture base resins with conventional heat-polymerized denture base resin.

Material and Methods: Utilizing an established in vivo sample design verified through Satterthwaite’s criteria (N = 30) unique frameworks across three parallel clusters) , secondary master casts were digitally captured using an intraoral scanner (Waldent BLZ IntraVue 900 AI). CAD base structures designed via Exocad software were generated through a precise DLP printing platform (SHINING 3D AccuFab-CEL). Framework layouts were allocated into three structural testing arms: Group I (ARMA Dental 3D Resin) , Group II (FILAMONT Standard Pro 2.0 Resin) , and Group III (Conventional Heat-Cured PMMA). In vivo physical retention forces (measured in Newtons) were documented inside patients’ oral cavities using a calibrated pull-and-push force meter framework. Destructive fracture toughness loads (N) were evaluated using an automated Universal Testing Machine (Instron) applying localized vertical crosshead deflection until catastrophic specimen failure occurred. Collected structural datasets were processed via Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) paired with standard statistical thresholds.

Results: High-resolution statistical computation revealed highly distinct structural behaviours among the structural arms (p = 0.001). For clinical retention parameters, Group I (ARMA) yielded the highest absolute resistance force (4.11 N), closely followed by Group II (3.77 N), whereas Group III (Conventional PMMA) demonstrated the weakest overall baseline retention profile (3.45N). Conversely, structural evaluation of mechanical load capacities revealed that Group II (FILAMONT) demonstrated a statistically superior fracture threshold of (2793.15 N), outperforming Group I ($2134.42 N) and more than doubling the physical load capacity of Group III (1188.64 N).

Conclusions: Additive manufacturing photopolymer workflows deliver significantly improved tissue adaptation and retention scores compared to conventional flasking networks. Within clinical environments prioritizing maximum operational framework durability against mechanical flexural fractures, the cross-linked structural grid of the FILAMONT resin matrix offered a highly advantageous option for contemporary digital prosthodontic execution.