Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
Statement of problem: Biobased dental cast resins and nonhazardous postprocessing cleaning solutions have been introduced in efforts to improve the sustainability of additive manufacturing. However, the combined effects of these components on the surface roughness (Ra) and microhardness of additively manufactured dental casts have not been investigated. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the Ra and microhardness of biobased dental cast resins cleaned with different postprocessing cleaning solutions and to compare them with those of a conventional dental cast resin cleaned with isopropyl alcohol (IPA). Material and methods: Disk-shaped specimens (Ø10×2 mm) were fabricated from 3 biobased dental cast resins, plant-based resin gray (AC), soy-based resin (EX), and FotoDent biobased model resin (FD), and cleaned using methyl ether solvent (MES), IPA, or a water-based cleaning solution (n=12). Additional 12 specimens were fabricated from a conventional dental cast resin (KeyModel Ultra Ivory [KM]) and cleaned with IPA to serve as the control group. After fabrication, the Ra and Vickers microhardness values of all specimens were measured, and representative laser microscope images were made. Test groups were compared with generalized linear model and Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests, whereas comparisons with the control group were made with 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Dunnett tests (α=.05). Results: For both outcomes, a statistically significant interaction was observed between biobased cast resin and cleaning solution, and significant differences were found between the test and control groups (P≤.009). The water-based solution led to the highest Ra for AC (P≤.001). When MES and IPA were used, FD had the highest Ra (P≤.001). FD also had higher Ra than EX when the water-based solution was used (P=.031). Except for FD and AC cleaned with the water-based solution (P≥.086), all test groups had lower Ra than the control group (P≤.003). MES cleaning led to the highest hardness for EX and FD (P<.001), whereas IPA cleaning led to the highest hardness for AC (P≤.042). EX resin had the highest hardness, regardless of the cleaning solution (P<.001). KM had lower hardness than all test groups (P<.001). AC showed pronounced irregularities with MES and water-based solutions, EX appeared similar across solutions, FD had heterogeneous debris after IPA cleaning, and KM exhibited superficial scratches. Conclusions: FD resin generally exhibited higher roughness, while the water-based solution increased AC resin’s roughness. EX resin showed the highest microhardness across all cleaning solutions. Microhardness was the highest after IPA cleaning for AC and after MES cleaning for the other biobased resins. Most test groups had lower roughness than the control, while all showed higher microhardness.