• Users Online: 1004
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 377-381

Surface roughness and marginal adaptation of stereolithography versus digital light processing three-dimensional printed resins: An in-vitro study

Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission10-Jan-2022
Date of Decision12-Aug-2022
Date of Acceptance15-Aug-2022
Date of Web Publication03-Oct-2022

Correspondence Address:
Vinay Sivaswamy
Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai - 600 077, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_8_22

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess surface roughness and marginal adaptation of Stereolithographic versus Digital Light Processed three-dimensional (3D) printed provisional resins.
Materials and Methods: A 3-unit fixed partial denture (FPD) preparation was done on ideal model irrespective to 44–46. The Model was scanned and a 3-unit FPD was designed using 3-shape software. The STL file was transferred to two different 3D printers – Sprintray digital light processing (DLP) and Formlabs stereolithography (SLA). Eight samples were printed per group (total of 16 samples) using C and B temporary tooth-colored resin and cured according to the manufacturer's instructions. Marginal adaptation was checked for six surfaces per tooth for all the samples using a stereomicroscope. Surface roughness was also calculated for four samples from each group before and after polishing (pumice slurry + rouge and cotton buff) using a contact profilometer.
Results: The mean maximum marginal gap overall, was seen for the DLP group on the mesiobuccal surface of the first premolar, i.e., 178.8 ± 8.35 μm, while the minimal marginal gap was seen for the SLA group on the mesiolingual surface of first molar − 32.5 ± 7.07 μm. Furthermore, all the DLP samples showed a statistically significant higher mean marginal gap as compared to SLA samples (P < 0.005). All the samples showed surface roughness within the acceptable range. There was a statistically significant difference noted in Rz (roughness depth) before and after polishing (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: 3D printed temporary resin FPD via SLA showed a much better marginal adaptation (49.6 μm mean marginal gap for 46 and 106.8 μm for 44) as compared to those printed via DLP (101.8 μm mean marginal gap for 46 and 157.5 μm for 44). All the samples showed an acceptable surface roughness.
Clinical Relevance: 3D printed temporaries have shown good marginal fit and adaptation and are a viable choice in patients where temporaries has to be given for long term before a final prosthesis can be fabricated (especially for full mouth rehabilitations).

Keywords: Direct light projection, provisional restorations, stereolithography

How to cite this article:
Wadhwani V, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Surface roughness and marginal adaptation of stereolithography versus digital light processing three-dimensional printed resins: An in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2022;22:377-81

How to cite this URL:
Wadhwani V, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Surface roughness and marginal adaptation of stereolithography versus digital light processing three-dimensional printed resins: An in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 7];22:377-81. Available from: https://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2022/22/4/377/357805

  Introduction Top

The introduction of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has revolutionized the field of restorative dentistry.[1] Prosthesis fabricated using CAD/CAM has several advantages such as reduced patient appointments, excellent tissue adaptation, and mechanical properties.[2],[3],[4] Digital manufacturing includes subtractive methods using computer-aided milling and additive method using 3-dimensional (3D) printing. Milling technologies have the inherent disadvantage of being unable to sculpt complicated details such as undercuts and intaglio geometry, as well as the ability to create only one unit at a time. Additive manufacturing, on the other hand, can render complicated geometry and has the potential to be considerably more resourceful as it does not involve the wear of rotary tools or wastage of materials.[5]

A total of seven additive manufacturing technologies were determined by the ASTM committee F42-Stereolithography (SLA), material jetting, material extrusion or fused deposition modeling, binder jetting, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, and direct energy deposition.[6],[7] In the SLA process, a build platform is immersed in liquid resin, which is subsequently polymerized by an ultraviolet (UV) laser. Each layer's cross-section is traced by the laser.[8]

The layer thickness can be customized by the user and dictates how much distance the build platform will drop into the photopolymer vat to allow the uncured resin to cover the previously cured layer. This process is repeated till the printing is complete.[9] The ASTM classifies digital light processing (DLP) into an identical category as SLA because their technologies are similar. The cross-section of object to be printed is projected by a matrix of microscopic mirrors with a semiconductor chip which is also known as a digital micromirror device. Some printers also use an arc lamp to project the image on the vat of liquid photopolymer through a DLP projector with a UV clear window under safe lighting. The printed object is rather drawn upward from the liquid resin than being submerged in this technique.[10],[11] SLA and DLP are the most common technologies used in dentistry worldwide.

Recently, CAD/CAM technology has been extensively used to manufacture provisional crowns for patients via an indirect method.[12] Good quality provisional crowns are required to safeguard the prepared teeth and periodontal tissues.[13] They are also utilized to preserve the function and esthetics of the oral cavity. Internal fit and marginal adaptation are critical for any restoration's long-term clinical success.[14],[15] Microleakage and plaque accumulation can be exacerbated by poor marginal fit, leading to cement disintegration, recurrent decay, and periodontal inflammation. As a result, extra attention should be paid to the marginal adaptation of restorations.[16],[17]

The characteristics of the material such as marginal fit, hardness, and roughness affect the stability of color, in turn, influencing esthetic appearance, preservation of occlusal relationship, and bacterial adhesion which will lead to a biofilm formation. If the material used and the technique for fabrication of temporary crowns is adequate, the final result will be of superior quality and, hence, maintain the integrity of the periodontium.[18]

The aim of this study was to assess surface roughness and marginal adaptation of stereolithographic versus. DLP 3D printed provisional crowns. The null hypothesis stated that there is no difference between the surface roughness and marginal adaptation of provisional crowns fabricated by DLP or SLA 3D printers.

  Materials and Methods Top

Sample preparation

An ideal tooth preparation was done on a typodont model (NISSIN Typodont Jaw Model) with respect to the first premolar and molar, while the second premolar was removed to simulate a partially edentulous condition for fabrication of a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). The preparations were evaluated by two different faculty members for the presence of undercut or any defect. The preparations were scanned by a Medit® Lab Scanner and files were exported in STL format and transferred to 3Shape® CAD software. A 3-unit FDP was designed and was transferred to two different types of 3D printers-Sprint Ray® (DLP) and Form Labs® (SLA). Eight samples per group were 3D printed (total of 16 samples) using NextDent C and B temporary tooth-colored resin. The build angle and layer thickness were rendered identical for both types of printers. The residual surface monomer was cleaned using 99.9% ethyl alcohol and support structures were clipped flush with the printed structure before polymerization using specific light cure units for the two printers according to the manufacturer's guidelines [Figure 1]a, [Figure 1]b, [Figure 1]c.
Figure 1: The sequential methodology of the study. (a) Tooth preparation, (b1): FormLabs printer, (b2): SprintRay printer, (c1): DLP sample, (c2): SLA sample, (d): Stereomicroscope, (e1): Contact Goniometer, (e2): Goniometer tip on sample. DLP: Digital light processing, SLA: Stereolithography

Click here to view

Marginal adaptation

All the samples were seated on the ideal model without any internal surface modifications or adjustments. The typodont teeth were removed from the model for ease of recording. All the provisional FDP samples were evaluated under a stereomicroscope (LYNX, Lawrence Mayo) with ×2 by a blinded reviewer for six surfaces per tooth-buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, mesiolingual, distobuccal, and distolingual surfaces. A digital scale incorporated in the stereomicroscope software was used [Figure 1]d.

Surface roughness

Four samples each from the two groups were randomly selected and were subjected to a surface roughness test by a contact goniometer (Ossila®) with a measurement accuracy of ±1° and a measurement range of 5°–180°. A droplet is placed on the substrate which is then gradually tilted. The advancing angle is measured at the front edge of the droplet just before the droplet becomes unpinned and starts to move. The receding contact angle is measured at the rear of the droplet before the trailing edge starts to move. Measurements were made both before and after surface polishing by pumice slurry, followed by rouge and a cotton buff [Figure 1]e. The values were evaluated by a blinded investigator and the same surface was chosen for all the samples (buccal surface) for roughness calculation.

Statistical analysis

All the values obtained were tabulated and coded in a spreadsheet and then transferred to IBM SPSS v23.0 software (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY). Due to the scaled nature of data, parametric tests were chosen. Unpaired/independent t-test was performed to find if significant differences are there between the two groups and the P value was calculated.

  Results Top

The group statistics of the marginal gaps seen on the six surfaces of both the abutments for all samples is summarized in [Table 1]. The mean maximum marginal gap overall was seen for the DLP group on the mesiobuccal surface of the first premolar, i.e., 178.8 ± 8.35 μm while the minimal marginal gap was seen for the SLA group on the mesiolingual surface of the first molar −32.5 ± 7.07 μm. The mean marginal gaps seen across the surfaces of the first molar were significantly less than that seen with the first premolar. Furthermore, all the DLP samples showed a statistically significant higher mean marginal gap as compared to SLA samples (P < 0.005).
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of marginal gap seen on the six surfaces examined

Click here to view

The mean surface roughness (Ra) was 0.24 ± 0.07 μm for SLA samples and 0.28 ± 0.05 μm for DLP samples. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups The difference in mean surface roughness values of the samples before and after polishing are displayed in [Table 2] along with paired t-sample test.
Table 2: Paired samples t-test for surface roughness of various samples pre- and postpolishing

Click here to view

  Discussion Top

The null hypothesis states that there was no difference between the DLP and SLA samples in the marginal adaptation and surface roughness. The null hypothesis was partially rejected as SLA samples showed a statistically significant difference in terms of marginal adaptation when compared with DLP samples (P < 0.005), but no difference was found between the surface roughness values. However, a significant reduction in roughness depth (Rz) was observed after polishing the samples (P < 0.05).

The clinical outcome of dental restorations depends highly on marginal adaptation.[17] In general, the precision of marginal fit is determined by tooth preparation, impression technique, restorative materials and technology used for fabricating them, and even on the luting cement. In the previous publications, the average discrepancy in the marginal fit has been reported to be in the range from 177 to 400 μm for interim crowns.[18],[19] McLean and Von[20] reported a marginal gap of 120 μm to be clinically acceptable while Boening et al.[21] claimed that a marginal gap between 100 and 200 μm lies within the clinically permissible range for a definitive prosthesis. In the current study, the DLP samples showed a mean marginal gap of 101.8 ± 11.42 μm for the first molar and 157.5 ± 13 μm for the first premolar. On the other hand, SLA samples showed much lower mean marginal gap values, i.e., 49.6 ± 10.9 μm for the first molar and 106.8 ± 15.22 μm for the first premolar. Although both groups showed values within the clinically acceptable range, SLA samples had statistically significant better marginal adaptation as compared to DLP samples (P < 0.005).

Previous studies[22],[23] have already demonstrated that surface roughness significantly influences the extent of microbial adhesion to the denture base. The microbial attachment was increased on rougher surfaces, with roughness values ranging between 0.1 and 0.4 mm. Smooth interim restorations are essential to avoid biofilm accumulation and to maintain healthy periodontal tissues. The surface roughness values obtained in the current study lie in the threshold of clinical relevance, as described by Quirynen et al. and Bollen et al.[24],[25]

Although there is no literature comparing SLA versus DLP technology in the construction of provisional crowns, studies comparing these technologies for the printing of 3D dental models are abundant. A study by Kim et al.[26] demonstrated that the models printed by SLA technique were more accurate in terms of measurement of teeth the arch as compared to the DLP technique; however, DLP was superior in precision. As the printers with SLA technology complete one layer by curing the resin point by point via laser projection, the slow space of the mirror reflecting the beam of laser is bound to generate the error. On the other hand, DLP technology is faster because it employs a projector to cure the material layer by layer, reducing the inaccuracy that comes with repetitive printing. When we examined the two processes, we found that the SLA technology, which uses a lower x-y resolution and thinner layer thickness, was more exact than the DLP technique, although it was less precise due to variations in the manufacturing technique. A recent systematic review[27] also demonstrated that models printed by SLA technology were more accurate but had a wider range of mean errors.

  Conclusion Top

In this study, we did a comparative evaluation of marginal adaptation and surface roughness of SLA versus DLP 3D printed commercially available crown and bridge provisional restorative material. There was no difference in surface roughness between both techniques. Furthermore, the temporary restorations printed via SLA showed a significantly less marginal gap as compared to DLP ones. Future work utilizing the same methodology can be carried out clinically to provide a definitive protocol.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11.  Back to cited text no. 1
Yao J, Li J, Wang Y, Huang H. Comparison of the flexural strength and marginal accuracy of traditional and CAD/CAM interim materials before and after thermal cycling. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:649-57.  Back to cited text no. 2
Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Eichberger M, Güth JF. Evaluation of mechanical and optical behavior of current esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2015;55:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 3
Peñate L, Basilio J, Roig M, Mercadé M. Comparative study of interim materials for direct fixed dental prostheses and their fabrication with CAD/CAM technique. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:248-53.  Back to cited text no. 4
Revilla-León M, Özcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: Current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-58.  Back to cited text no. 5
Committee F, F42 Committee. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Terminology.  Back to cited text no. 6
Horn TJ, Harrysson OL. Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and selected applications. Sci Prog 2012;95:255-82.  Back to cited text no. 7
Bártolo PJ. Stereolithography: Materials, Processes and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011. p. 340.  Back to cited text no. 8
Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018;34:192-200.  Back to cited text no. 9
Groth C, Kravitz ND, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Three-dimensional printing technology. J Clin Orthod 2014;48:475-85.  Back to cited text no. 10
Ruyter IE, Oysaed H. Conversion in different depths of ultraviolet and visible light activated composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40:179-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12.  Back to cited text no. 12
Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:474-97.  Back to cited text no. 13
Baig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104:216-27.  Back to cited text no. 14
Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Von Steyern PV, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:526-30.  Back to cited text no. 15
Goldman M, Laosonthorn P, White RR. Microleakage-full crowns and the dental pulp. J Endod 1992;18:473-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
Valderhaugw J, Birkeland JM. Periodontal conditions in patients 5 years following insertion of fixed prostheses. J Oral Rehabil 1976;3:237-43.  Back to cited text no. 17
Givens EJ Jr., Neiva G, Yaman P, Dennison JB. Marginal adaptation and color stability of four provisional materials. J Prosthodont 2008;17:97-101.  Back to cited text no. 18
Tjan AH, Castelnuovo J, Shiotsu G. Marginal fidelity of crowns fabricated from six proprietary provisional materials. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:482-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
McLean JW, Von F. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.  Back to cited text no. 20
Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:419-24.  Back to cited text no. 21
Shim JS, Kim JE, Jeong SH, Choi YJ, Ryu JJ. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:468-75.  Back to cited text no. 22
Terada A, Yuasa A, Kushimoto T, Tsuneda S, Katakai A, Tamada M. Bacterial adhesion to and viability on positively charged polymer surfaces. Microbiology (Reading) 2006;152:3575-83.  Back to cited text no. 23
Quirynen M, Van Der Mei HC, Bollen CM, Schotte A, Marechal M, Doornbusch GI, et al. An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res 1993;72:1304-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, Van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:201-11.  Back to cited text no. 25
Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY. Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:144-53.  Back to cited text no. 26
Etemad-Shahidi Y, Qallandar OB, Evenden J, Alifui-Segbaya F, Ahmed KE. Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: A systematic review. J Clin Med 2020;9:3357.  Back to cited text no. 27


  [Figure 1]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded77    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal