Water Sorption and Solubility Behavior of Provisional Restorative Materials Fabricated by Conventional, CAD/CAM, and 3D printing Methods

Section: Research Paper
Issue
Vol. 26 No. 1 (2026): Volume 26 Issue 1
Pages
38-57

Keywords:

CAD/CAM, 3D printing, Provisional restorations, Water sorption,,, Water solubility

Abstract

Aims: The present study aimed to assess and compare the levels of water sorption and solubility of provisional restorative materials manufactured by conventional, CAD/CAM, or 3D printing methods. Materials and Methods: A total of forty-two circular samples of (15mm × 2 mm diameter, thickness respectively) respectively were fabricated and divided into three groups (n= 7 for each sample): Group A: 3D-printed at 0°, 15°, and 45° build angles by using a digital light processing (DLP) printer (Creality LD-006, China) with (FREEPRINT® temp resin, Jermany), Group B: CAD/CAM milled at high (5-8m) and low (8-15m) speed by using pre-polymerized PMMA blocks (Dental Direct polyX ML, Jermany) using a 5-axis milling machine (Zahndent, China), Group C: Conventional self-curing interim resin IMICRYL® (Imident powder. Turky). All samples were tested for water sorption and solubility tests. The collected data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and independent t-tests, with the significance level set at 0.05. Results: The results of the one-way ANOVA test indicated a statistically significant variation (P ≤ 0.01) in water sorption values between 3D-printed provisional restorations fabricated with build angles of 0°, 15°, and 45°, but not in water solubility, for which there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). However, Independent samples t-tests showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05), indicating that the variation in milling speeds, low (8-15 m/min) versus high (5-8 m/min) had no detectable effect on water sorption or solubility in the CAD/CAM groups. Comparing all the fabrication processes, ANOVA indicated significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in both parameters. Duncan’s test showed the highest water sorption in 3D-printed 0° (1.0029 μg/mm³), followed by 15° (0.878 μg/mm³) and 45° (0.8177 μg/mm³). CAD/CAM low-speed milling had 1.1501 μg/mm³ and high-speed 1.1069 μg/mm³, while conventional PMMA had 1.0078 μg/mm³. For water solubility, conventional PMMA had the highest mean value (0.0887 μg/mm³), and the 3D-printed 0° group had the lowest (0.0183 μg/mm³). Conclusion: Results indicate that fabrication method and build orientation influence the water sorption and water solubility of provisional restorative materials. 3D-printed restorations, particularly those printed at a 0° build angle, exhibited the least solubility and good water resistance compared to CAD/CAM and control PMMA groups. The results demonstrate the potential of optimized 3D printing parameters in producing long-lasting, water-resistant provisional restorations.

References

  1. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1997.
  2. Sahin Z, Ozer NE. Evaluation of water absorption and solubility of digitally and conventionally produced temporary fixed materials. Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine. 2024; 28(1):33-7. doi:10.5937/bjdm2401033S.
  3. Al-Qahtani AS, Tulbah HI, Binhasan M, Abbasi MS, Ahmed N, Shabib S, et al. Surface properties of polymer resins fabricated with subtractive and additive manufacturing techniques. Polymers. 2021; 13(23):4077. doi:10.3390/polym13234077.
  4. Abdulla MA. The Effect of Different Levels of a Network Reinforced System and Curing Methods on Properties of Different Acrylic Resin Denture Base Materials. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2022; 30; 12(6): 621-629.doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_187_22.
  5. Reeponmaha T, Angwaravong O, Angwarawong T. Comparison of fracture strength after thermo-mechanical aging between provisional crowns made with CAD/CAM and conventional method. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Aug;12(4):218-224. doi: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.4.218.
  6. Jamel RS, Al-Murad MA, Alkhalidi EF. The efficacy of reinforcement of glass fibers and ZrO₂ nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of autopolymerizing provisional restorations (PMMA). The Saudi Dental Journal. 2023;35(6):707-713. doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.029.
  7. Pituru SM, Greabu M, Totan A, Imre M, Pantea M, Spinu T, Tancu AMC, Popoviciu NO, Stanescu II, Ionescu E. A Review on the Biocompatibility of PMMA-Based Dental Materials for Interim Prosthetic Restorations with a Glimpse into their Modern Manufacturing Techniques. Materials (Basel). 2020 Jun 28; 13(13):2894. doi: 10.3390/ma13132894.
  8. Astudillo-Rubio D, Delgado-Gaete A, Bellot-Arcís C, Montiel-Company JM, Pascual-Moscardó A, Almerich-Silla JM. Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018; 13(2):e0193162. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193162.
  9. Sokhal K, Kumar S, Aggarwal R, Kaur I, Thoidingjam B, Deokate A, et al. Comparative evaluation of surface hardness of bis-acryl composite and polymethyl methacrylate-based provisional restorative materials: An in vitro study. Cureus. 2025; 17(4). doi: 10.7759/cureus.83269
  10. Idrissi HA, Annamma LM, Sharaf D, Jaghsi AA, Abutayyem H. Comparative evaluation of flexural strength of four different types of provisional restoration materials: An in vitro pilot study. Children. 2023; 10(2):380. doi.org/10.3390/children10020380.
  11. Anusavice, Kenneth J., Chiayi Shen, and H. Ralph Rawls, eds. 12th ed. Phillips' science of dental materials. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2012.
  12. Gad MM, Alshehri SZ, Alhamid SA, Albarrak A, Khan SQ, Alshahrani FA, Alqarawi FK. Water sorption, solubility, and translucency of 3D-printed denture base resins. Dentistry Journal. 2022;10(3):42. doi:10.3390/dj10030042.
  13. Dimitrova M, Vlahova A, Hristov I, Kazakova R, Chuchulska B, Kazakov S, et al. Evaluation of water sorption and solubility of 3D-printed, CAD/CAM milled, and PMMA denture base materials subjected to artificial aging. Journal of Composites Science. 2023; 7(8):339. doi:10.3390/jcs7080339.
  14. Wallum AJ, Raimondi C, Lien W, Hoopes WL, Vandewalle KS. Effect of Milling Speed on the Properties of Zirconia Restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024 Jan 1; 16(1):e84-e89. Doi: 10.4317/jced.61231.
  15. Song S-Y, Shin Y-H, Lee J-Y, Shin S-W. Color stability of provisional restorative materials with different fabrication methods. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2020; 12(5):259-64. doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.259.
  16. Shin J-W, Kim J-E, Choi Y-J, Shin S-H, Nam N-E, Shim J-S, Lee K-W. Evaluation of the color stability of 3D-printed crown and bridge materials against various sources of discoloration: An in vitro study. Materials. 2020;13(23):5359. doi:10.3390/ma13235359.
  17. Tuna SH, Keyf F, Gumus H O, Uzun C. The evaluation of water sorption/solubility on various acrylic resins. European Journal of Dentistry. 2008; 2(03):191-197.
  18. Kazak M, Toz Akalin T, Esen F. Comparison of Water Sorption and Water Solubility Properties of Current Restorative Materials with Different Contents. Eur J Dent. 2025 Feb; 19(1):248-254. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1789270.
  19. Wiertelak-Makała K, Szymczak-Pajor I, Bociong K, Śliwińska A. Considerations about cytotoxicity of resin-based composite dental materials: A systematic review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023;25(1):152. doi:10.3390/ijms25010152.
  20. Zidan S, Silikas N, Haider J, Yates J. Long-term sorption and solubility of zirconia-impregnated PMMA nanocomposite in water and artificial saliva. Materials. 2020; 13(17):3732. doi:10.3390/ma13173732.
  21. Myagmar G, Lee JH, Ahn JS, Yeo IL, Yoon HI, Han JS. Wear of 3D printed and CAD/CAM milled interim resin materials after chewing simulation. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021 Jun; 13(3):144-151. doi: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.3.144.
  22. Al-Dwairi ZN, Tahboub KY, Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ. A Comparison of the Flexural and Impact Strengths and Flexural Modulus of CAD/CAM and Conventional Heat-Cured Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA). J Prosthodont. 2020 Apr; 29(4):341-349. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12926.
  23. Ku, F. H., Chen, P. H., Du, J. K., & Wang, Y. H. (2024). Water temperature for fabrication of autopolymerizing polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) interim fixed restoration affects cytotoxicity and residual methyl methacrylate (MMA). Journal of Dental Sciences, 19(1), 124-129. doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2023.05.027.
  24. Izzettinoglu E, Eroglu E. Assessing the impact of surface treatment, aging, and post-curing conditions on the water sorption and solubility of 3D-printed denture base resins compared to conventional and milled alternatives. BMC Oral Health. 2025 Oct 29; 25(1):1698. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-07115-7.
  25. Figuerôa R M S, Conterno B, Arrais C A G, Sugio C Y C, Urban V M, Neppelenbroek K H. Porosity, water sorption, and solubility of denture base acrylic resins polymerized conventionally or in microwave. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2018; 26:e20170383. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0383.
  26. Machado C, Rizzatti-Barbosa C M, Gabriotti M N, Joia F A, Ribeiro M C, Sousa R L. Influence of mechanical and chemical polishing in the solubility of acrylic resins polymerized by microwave irradiation and conventional water bath. Dental Materials. 2004;20(6):565-569. doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2003.09.001.
  27. Berli C, Thieringer F M, Sharma N, Müller J A, Dedem P, Fischer J, Rohr N. Comparing the mechanical properties of pressed, milled, and 3D-printed resins for occlusal devices. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2020; 124(6):780-6. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.009.
  28. Alharbi S, Alshabib A, Algamaiah H, Aldosari M, Alayad A. Influence of Post-Printing Polymerization Time on the Elution of Residual Monomers and Water Sorption of 3D-Printed Resin Composite. Materials (Basel). 2025 Jun 19; 18(12):2905. doi: 10.3390/ma18122905.
  29. Alao AR, Stoll R, Song XF, Abbott JR, Zhang Y, Abduo J, Yin L. Fracture, roughness and phase transformation in CAD/CAM milling and subsequent surface treatments of lithium metasilicate/disilicate glass-ceramics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017 Oct; 74:251-260. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.015.
  30. Engler MLPD, Güth JF, Keul C, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Liebermann A. Residual monomer elution from different conventional and CAD/CAM dental polymers during artificial aging. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jan; 24(1):277-284. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02947-4.
  31. Stansbury J W, Idacavage M J. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dental Materials. 2016; 32(1):54-64. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018.
  32. Mudhaffer S, Silikas N, Satterthwaite J. Effect of print orientation on sorption, solubility, and monomer elution of 3D printed resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Aug;134(2):461.e1-461.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.04.040.
  33. Aldhafyan M, Silikas N, Watts DC. Influence of curing modes on monomer elution, sorption and solubility of dual-cure resin-cements. Dent Mater. 2022 Jun;38(6):978-988. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.03.004.

Authors

Hussein Hayder Qasim

First Specialized Dental Center, Kirkuk Health Directorate, Kirkuk, Iraq

Mohammed A. Abdulla

Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

Hasan Khiraldeen Mohialdeen

PhD Candidate, School of Dentistry, University of Sheffield, UK

Identifiers

DOI: 10.33899/rdentj.v26i1.60494

Download this PDF file
##submission.supplementaryFiles##
pdf

Statistics

Copyright and Licensing
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.