Targeting bonding protocols to increase the bond between acrylic resin or 3D printed denture bases and prefabricated or 3D printed denture teeth

Statement of problem The difference in chemical composition between denture base resin and denture teeth requires the development of bonding protocols that increase the union between the materials. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of different bonding protocols on the bond between heat-polymerized and 3-dimensionally (3D) printed acrylic resin denture bases and acrylic resin prefabricated and 3D printed artificial teeth. Material and methods Four types of artificial teeth were evaluated: prefabricated acrylic resin (VITA MFT) and 3D printed (Cosmos TEMP, PRIZMA 3D Bio Denture, and PrintaX AA Temp) bonded to 20×24-mm cylinders of heat-polymerized (VipiWave) and 3D printed (Cosmos Denture, PRIZMA 3D Bio Denture, and PrintaX BB Base) denture bases. Three bonding protocols were tested (n=20): mechanical retention with perforation + monomer (PT1), mechanical retention with perforation + airborne-particle abrasion with 50-µm aluminum oxide + monomer (PT2), and mechanical retention with perforation + Palabond (PT3). Half of the specimens in each group received 10 000 thermocycles and were then subjected to the bonding test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The failure type was analyzed and scanning electron micrographs made. Additionally, surface roughness (Ra) and wettability (degree) were analyzed (n=15). ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of the bonding protocol, and the Student t test was applied to compare the experimental groups with the control (α=.05). For type of failure, a descriptive analysis was carried out using absolute and relative frequency. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the surface changes (α=.05). Results Among the protocols, PT3 with in Yller and PT2 with Prizma had the highest bond strengths of the heat-polymerized denture base and 3D printed teeth (P<.05). When comparing the experimental groups with the control, PT3 and PT2 had greater union with the 3D printed denture base + 3D printed teeth (in Yller), with no difference from the heat-polymerized denture base + prefabricated teeth in acrylic resin. The treatment of the 3D printed tooth surfaces affected the surface roughness of Prizma (P<.001) and wettability (P<.001). Conclusions To increase the bond between Yller 3D printed denture base + 3D printed teeth, a bonding protocol including mechanical retention with perforation + Palabond or mechanical retention with perforation + airborne-particle abrasion with aluminum oxide + monomer is indicated. For the other materials tested, further bonding protocols need to be investigated.