PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the wear resistance and surface roughness of three interim resin materials, which were subjected to chewing simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three interim resin materials were evaluated: (1) three-dimensional (3D) printed (digital light processing type), (2) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled, and (3) conventional polymethyl methacrylate interim resin materials. A total of 48 substrate specimens were prepared. The specimens were divided into two subgroups and subjected to 30,000 or 60,000 cycles of chewing simulation (n = 8). The wear volume loss and surface roughness of the materials were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using oneway analysis of variance and Tukey’s post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation values of wear volume loss (in mm 3 ) against the metal abrader after 60,000 cycles were 0.10 ± 0.01 for the 3D printed resin, 0.21 ± 0.02 for the milled resin, and 0.44 ± 0.01 for the conventional resin. Statistically significant differences among volume losses were found in the order of 3D printed, milled, and conventional interim materials (P <.001). After 60,000 cycles of simulated chewing, the mean surface roughness (Ra; µm) values for 3D printed, milled, and conventional materials were 0.59 ± 0.06, 1.27 ± 0.49, and 1.64 ± 0.44, respectively. A significant difference was found in the Ra value between 3D printed and conventional materials (P =.01). CONCLUSION The interim restorative materials for additive and subtractive manufacturing digital technologies exhibited less wear volume loss than the conventional interim resin.The 3D printed interim restorative material showed a smoother surface than the conventional interim material after simulated chewing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the wear resistance and surface roughness of three interim resin materials, which were subjected to chewing simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three interim resin materials were evaluated: (1) three-dimensional (3D) printed (digital light processing type), (2) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled, and (3) conventional polymethyl methacrylate interim resin materials. A total of 48 substrate specimens were prepared. The specimens were divided into two subgroups and subjected to 30,000 or 60,000 cycles of chewing simulation (n = 8). The wear volume loss and surface roughness of the materials were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using oneway analysis of variance and Tukey’s post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation values of wear volume loss (in mm 3 ) against the metal abrader after 60,000 cycles were 0.10 ± 0.01 for the 3D printed resin, 0.21 ± 0.02 for the milled resin, and 0.44 ± 0.01 for the conventional resin. Statistically significant differences among volume losses were found in the order of 3D printed, milled, and conventional interim materials (P <.001). After 60,000 cycles of simulated chewing, the mean surface roughness (Ra; µm) values for 3D printed, milled, and conventional materials were 0.59 ± 0.06, 1.27 ± 0.49, and 1.64 ± 0.44, respectively. A significant difference was found in the Ra value between 3D printed and conventional materials (P =.01). CONCLUSION The interim restorative materials for additive and subtractive manufacturing digital technologies exhibited less wear volume loss than the conventional interim resin.The 3D printed interim restorative material showed a smoother surface than the conventional interim material after simulated chewing.