Acrylic-based occlusal device materials – the influence of manufacturing techniques on material properties and the propensity for biofilm formation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.45909Keywords:
CAD/CAM, material characteristics, dental biofilmAbstract
Objective: The material composition, manufacturing system, and post-processing steps used to fabricate acrylic-based occlusal devices may affect their clinical performance. This study aims to assess how manufacturing techniques and post-processing treatments influence the material properties of acrylic-based occlusal devices and the propensity of Streptococcus mutans to form biofilms on the surfaces.
Materials and methods: Based on applied manufacturing technique and post-processing treatment, disc‑shaped specimens were manufactured using four 3D printing workflows (Splint 2.0‑Asiga Flash/Otoflash (OF), and LT Clear‑Form Cure/OF), one milling workflow (Therapon), and one autopolymerization workflow (PalaXtreme). Water sorption and solubility, surface free energy (SFE), average surface roughness, and Vickers hardness were tested across these workflows. The ATCC 700610 Streptococcus mutans strain served as a model for biofilm formation on the material surfaces. Two biofilm methods were employed: a 24-hour bioreactor approach and a 72-hour culture plate approach. Biofilm was quantified as colony-forming units per cm2.
Results and conclusion: The Therapon and PalaXtreme workflows exhibited the lowest solubility, suggesting that these materials have the lowest release of material components in water. The Splint 2.0 workflows exhibited the lowest water sorption, indicating enhanced material integrity in humid conditions. Therapon showed the highest Vickers hardness, followed by PalaXtreme. The lower hardness of the print materials may make them susceptible to wear, which may not be optimal for treating patients with bruxism. No significant differences in SFE were observed between workflows. Low roughness values across all workflows indicate good polishability, which can enhance resistance to bacterial adhesion. In the 72-hour biofilm experiment, the Therapon workflow exhibited the most biofilm formation on material surfaces while PalaXtreme showed the least (p < 0.05). No significant differences between workflow groups were shown in the 24-hour biofilm experiment.
In summary, material properties are influenced by material chemistry, manufacturing method, and associated post-processing treatment.
Downloads
References
Albagieh H, Alomran I, Binakresh A, Alhatarisha N, Almeteb M, Khalaf Y, et al. Occlusal splints-types and effectiveness in temporomandibular disorder management. Saudi Dent J. 2023;35(1):70–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.12.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.12.013
Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(Suppl 1):58–62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12480 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12480
Nishigawa K, Bando E, Nakano M. Quantitative study of bite force during sleep associated bruxism. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(5):485–91.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00692.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00692.x
Patzelt SBM, Krügel M, Wesemann C, Pieralli S, Nold J, Spies BC, et al. In vitro time efficiency, fit, and wear of conventionally- versus digitally-fabricated occlusal splints. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(3):1085.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15031085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15031085
Reymus M, Reinhard H, Andreas K. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated bite splints: milling vs 3D printing. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(12):4607–15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03329-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03329-x
Herpel C, Tasaka A, Higuchi S, Finke D, Kühle R, Odaka K, et al. Accuracy of 3D printing compared with milling – a multi-center analysis of try-in dentures. J Dent. 2021;110:103681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103681 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103681
Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Güth J-F. 3D printing in digital prosthetic dentistry: an overview of recent developments in additive manufacturing. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2010.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10092010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10092010
Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng. 2018;143:172–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(2):72–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.003
Suganna M, Nayakar RP, Alshaya AA, Khalil RO, Alkhunaizi ST, Kayello KT, et al. The digital era heralds a paradigm shift in dentistry: a cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2024;16(1):e53300.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.53300 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.53300
Suganna M, Kausher H, Tarek Ahmed S, Sultan Alharbi H, Faraj Alsubaie B, Ds A, et al. Contemporary evidence of CAD-CAM in dentistry: a systematic review. Cureus. 2022;14(11):e31687.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31687
Jokstad A. Computer-assisted technologies used in oral rehabilitation and the clinical documentation of alleged advantages – a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(4):261–90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12483
Björkman L. Adverse reactions to dental biomaterials: experiences from a specialty clinic. Dent Mater. 2024;40(3):563–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.01.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.01.004
Schubert A, Bürgers R, Baum F, Kurbad O, Wassmann T. Influence of the manufacturing method on the adhesion of Candida albicans and Streptococcus mutans to Oral Splint Resins. Polymers. 2021;13(10):1534.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13101534 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13101534
Selvaraj M, Mohaideen K, Sennimalai K, Gothankar GS, Arora G. Effect of oral environment on contemporary orthodontic materials and its clinical implications. J Orthod Sci. 2023;12:1.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_73_22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_73_22
Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21(1):9–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001
Iorgulescu G. Saliva between normal and pathological. Important factors in determining systemic and oral health. J Med Life. 2009;2(3):303–7.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 20795-2:2013 dentistry – base polymers – part 2: orthodontic base polymers. Geneva, Switzerland. 2013.
Branco AC, Colaço R, Figueiredo-Pina CG, Serro AP. A state-of-the-art review on the wear of the occlusal surfaces of natural teeth and prosthetic crowns. Materials. 2020;13(16):3525.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13163525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13163525
Nair KC, Dathan PC, Sreeba S, Soman AK. Hardness of dental materials is an essential property that determines the life of restorations – an overview. Acta Sci Dent Sci. 2022;6(12):1523.
https://doi.org/10.31080/ASDS.2022.06.1523 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31080/ASDS.2022.06.1523
Deo PN, Deshmukh R. Oral microbiome: unveiling the fundamentals. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2019;23(1):122–8.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_304_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_304_18
Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(11):5721–32.
https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.43.11.5721-5732.2005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.43.11.5721-5732.2005
Siqueira WL, Custodio W, McDonald EE. New insights into the composition and functions of the acquired enamel pellicle. J Dent Res. 2012;91(12):1110–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512462578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512462578
Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(S2):68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x
Monteiro DR, de Souza Batista VE, Caldeirão ACM, de Castilho Jacinto R, Pessan JP. Oral prosthetic microbiology: aspects related to the oral microbiome, surface properties, and strategies for controlling biofilms. Biofouling. 2021;37(4):353–71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2021.1912741 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2021.1912741
Øilo M, Bakken V. Biofilm and dental biomaterials. Materials. 2015;8(6):2887–900.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8062887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8062887
Marsh PD, Moter A, Devine DA. Dental plaque biofilms: communities, conflict and control. Periodontol 2000. 2011;55(1):16–35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00339.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00339.x
Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
Hannig C, Hannig M. The oral cavity – a key system to understand substratum-dependent bioadhesion on solid surfaces in man. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13(2):123–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0243-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0243-3
Yuan Y, Hays MP, Hardwidge PR, Kim J. Surface characteristics influencing bacterial adhesion to polymeric substrates. RSC Adv. 2017;7(23):14254–61.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01571B DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01571B
Yuan C, Wang X, Gao X, Chen F, Liang X, Li D. Effects of surface properties of polymer-based restorative materials on early adhesion of Streptococcus mutans in vitro. J Dent. 2016;54:33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.010
Quirynen M, Bollen CML. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22(1):1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb01765.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb01765.x
Detax. dx splint 2.0 [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Feb 17]. Available from: https://www.detax.com/dental/product/dx-splint-20
Formlabs. Dental LT clear V2 resin [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Feb 17]. Available from: https://dental.formlabs.com/store/materials/dental-lt-clear-resin-v2/
Szalóki M, Szabó Z, Martos R, Csík A, Szőllősi GJ, Hegedűs C. The surface free energy of resin-based composite in context of wetting ability of dental adhesives. Appl. Sci. 2023;13(21):12061.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app132112061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app132112061
Kwok DY, Neumann AW. Contact angle measurement and contact angle interpretation. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 1999;81(3):167–249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8686(98)00087-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8686(98)00087-6
He J, Stenhagen ISR, Dragland IS, Kopperud HM. Preparation of a fluorinated dental resin system and its anti-adhesive properties against S. mutans. Dent Mater. 2023;39(4):402–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2023.03.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2023.03.009
Andjela L, Abdurahmanovich VM, Vladimirovna SN, Mikhailovna GI, Yurievich DD, Alekseevna MY. A review on vat photopolymerization 3D-printing processes for dental application. Dent Mater. 2022;38(11):e284–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.09.005
Uchida H, Ovitt CE. Novel impacts of saliva with regard to oral health. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(3):383–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.009
Tuna SH, Keyf F, Gumus HO, Uzun C. The evaluation of water sorption/solubility on various acrylic resins. Eur J Dent. 2008;2(3):191–7.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697377
Huang B, Siqueira WL, Cvitkovitch DG, Finer Y. Esterase from a cariogenic bacterium hydrolyzes dental resins. Acta Biomater. 2018;71:330–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.02.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2018.02.020
Kim YJ, Kim HN, Kim DY. A study on effects of curing and machining conditions in post-processing of SLA additive manufactured polymer. J Manuf Process. 2024;119:511–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.03.112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.03.112
Nguyen J-F, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M. Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater. 2012;28(5):529–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.003
Ogawa T, Hasegawa A. Effect of curing environment on mechanical properties and polymerizing behaviour of methyl-methacrylate autopolymerizing resin. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(3):221–6.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01406.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01406.x
Gad MM, Alshehri SZ, Alhamid SA, Albarrak A, Khan SQ, Alshahrani FA, et al. Water sorption, solubility, and translucency of 3D-printed denture base resins. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(3):42.
https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10030042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10030042
Wulff J, Merle CL, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M. Wear behavior and water sorption of additively manufactured resin-based splint materials. Materials. 2024;17(23):5880.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17235880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17235880
AlRumaih HS, Gad MM. The effect of 3D printing layer thickness and post-polymerization time on the flexural strength and hardness of denture base resins. Prosthesis. 2024;6(4):970–8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6040070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6040070
Chun K, Choi H, Lee J. Comparison of mechanical property and role between enamel and dentin in the human teeth. J Dent Biomech. 2014;5:1758736014520809.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1758736014520809 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1758736014520809
Panayi N, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades G, Eliades T. Microplastics and orthodontic aligners: the concerns arising from the modernization of practice through polymers and plastics. J World Fed Orthod. 2024;13(6):259–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.10.001
Grymak A, Waddell JN, Aarts JM, Ma S, Choi JJE. Evaluation of wear behaviour of various occlusal splint materials and manufacturing processes. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2022;126:105053.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.105053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.105053
Whitehead KA, Colligon J, Verran J. Retention of microbial cells in substratum surface features of micrometer and sub-micrometer dimensions. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2005;41(2):129–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2004.11.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2004.11.010
Hsu LC, Fang J, Borca-Tasciuc DA, Worobo RW, Moraru CI. Effect of micro- and nanoscale topography on the adhesion of bacterial cells to solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79(8):2703–12.
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03436-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03436-12
Rueda SR, Sepsick H, Hammamy M, Nejat AH, Kee E, Lawson NC. The effect of different surface treatments on the roughness, translucency, and staining of 3D-printed occlusal device materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025;37(7):1940–8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13476
Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Darius PL, van Steenberghe D. The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17(3):138–44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1990.tb01077.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01077.x
Shim JS, Kim J-E, 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(4):468–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034
Wuersching SN, Westphal D, Stawarczyk B, Edelhoff D, Kollmuss M. Surface properties and initial bacterial biofilm growth on 3D-printed oral appliances: a comparative in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(6):2667–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04838-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04838-7
Villapun Puzas VM, Carter LN, Schröder C, Colavita PE, Hoey DA, Webber MA, et al. Surface free energy dominates the biological interactions of postprocessed additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2022;8(10):4311–26.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c00298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c00298
Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Bürgers R, Handel G. Surface properties and in vitro Streptococcus mutans adhesion to dental resin polymers. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19(7):2619–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3352-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3352-7
Sang T, Ye Z, Fischer NG, Skoe EP, Echeverría C, Wu J, et al. Physical-chemical interactions between dental materials surface, salivary pellicle and Streptococcus gordonii. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2020;190:110938.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.110938 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.110938
Cabrol A, Chuy V, Fron-Chabouis H, Naveau A. Effectiveness of postprocessing on 3D printed resin biocompatibility in prosthodontics: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;134(5):1688–700.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.014
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ketil H. Haugli, Jan Tore Samuelsen, Vigdis Aas, Inger S. Dragland, Colin Charnock
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
