Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
Sec. Biomaterials
Volume 12 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1453888

Biocompatibility of 3D-printed vs. thermoformed and heat-cured intraoral appliances

Provisionally accepted
Joanna Wezgowiec Joanna Wezgowiec 1*Andrzej Malysa Andrzej Malysa 1Julita Kulbacka Julita Kulbacka 2,3Agnieszka Chwilkowska Agnieszka Chwilkowska 2Marek Zietek Marek Zietek 1Mieszko Wieckiewicz Mieszko Wieckiewicz 1
  • 1 Faculty of Dentistry, Medical University Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
  • 2 Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
  • 3 Department of Immunology and Bioelectrochemistry, State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Objectives: The development of additive manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize the fabrication of medical devices. This technology, also known as 3D printing, offers precise, cost-effective, and personalized approaches, which could be particularly beneficial in the production of intraoral appliances. Despite its promise, research on the biocompatibility of 3D-printed intraoral devices is still limited. Our study aims to address this gap. Methods: We examined the cytotoxicity of materials processed via three techniques commonly used for the fabrication of different intraoral appliances: 3D printing (Dental LT Clear), thermoforming (Duran adjusted with Durasplint LC), and conventional heat-curing (Villacryl H Plus). We also investigated the impact of chemical or UVC disinfection on the biocompatibility of these materials. We assessed the biological effects induced in human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) through both direct contact tests (MTT and LDH assays) and extract tests (PrestoBlue, DCF, and cell death type assays). Additionally, we observed changes in cellular morphology and migration rate under an inverted light microscope. The surface roughness of materials was evaluated using contact profilometry. Statistical analysis was conducted using two-way analysis of variance. Results: Our findings suggest that all three fabrication techniques induced a slight cytotoxic effect in HGFs, as evidenced by both direct contact and extract tests. However, these materials could be considered nontoxic according to the ISO 10993-5:2009 norm, as the decrease in metabolic activity observed was always less than 30% compared to the untreated control. Conclusions: This novel study confirms that 3D printing may be a safe alternative to conventional methods for fabricating intraoral appliances. However, further tests assessing the long-term intraoral usage are still needed.

    Keywords: Additive manufacturing, Biomedical and Dental Materials, Oral device, Occlusal splint, Dental resins, polymer, Fibroblasts, Cytotoxicity

    Received: 24 Jun 2024; Accepted: 14 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Wezgowiec, Malysa, Kulbacka, Chwilkowska, Zietek and Wieckiewicz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Joanna Wezgowiec, Faculty of Dentistry, Medical University Wroclaw, Wroclaw, 50-425, Poland

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.