Impact of Sterilization Conditions on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Custom Resin Solutions Custom Guide Resin

Impact of Sterilization Conditions on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Custom Resin Solutions Custom Guide Resin
24 February 2025 Dental
  • Share,

Impact of Steam Autoclave Sterilization on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Surgical Guides

This study evaluates how steam autoclave sterilization at different temperatures affects the mechanical performance of 3D-printed surgical guides made with Custom Guide Resin (Custom Resin Solutions, Antalya, Türkiye). The primary outcomes were flexural modulus and flexural strength, measured by a three-point bending test. The study also compares guide accuracy before and after sterilization at 121°C (>1 bar, 20 min) and 134°C (>2 bar, 10 min) to identify an optimal sterilization protocol that maintains clinical performance.

Introduction

Implant-supported restorations have become increasingly common in modern dentistry due to their accuracy and predictable clinical outcomes. Multiple studies report high long-term success and survival rates for implant-supported treatments. During guided implant surgery, surgical guides can contact tissues, blood, and mucous membranes. If guides are not properly sterilized, microorganisms may enter the surgical site and compromise healing, treatment success, and implant lifespan.

Sterilization is defined as the complete elimination of all forms of microbial life using physical or chemical processes, while disinfection reduces microorganisms and may not reliably eliminate bacterial spores. According to CDC guidance, devices that contact blood and tissues are considered higher-risk and typically require high-level sterilization. In dental practice, steam autoclave sterilization remains widely used due to its practicality, cost-effectiveness, and established sterilization performance.

Materials and Methods

Eighteen standardized specimens were produced using an LCD-based 3D printer (PioCreat C-01, PioCreat 3D, Shenzhen, China) with a 50 µm layer thickness. Specimens were printed with Custom Guide Resin (Custom Resin Solutions, Antalya, Türkiye). After cleaning with isopropyl alcohol, all specimens were post-cured using a nitrogen-inert environment with an Otoflash G17 device (NK Optik, Baierbrunn, Germany), applying 2000 flashes (1000 flashes per side).

Specimens were divided into three groups (n = 6 per group):

  • Group A (Control): No sterilization applied.
  • Group B (121°C): Steam autoclave sterilization at 121°C, >1 bar, for 20 minutes.
  • Group C (134°C): Steam autoclave sterilization at 134°C, >2 bar, for 10 minutes.

Mechanical testing was performed using a three-point bending test on a Zwick Z250 universal testing machine (ZwickRoell, Yokohama, Japan). The crosshead speed was 5 mm/min, and results are reported as mean values for each group.

Results

To visualize the impact of sterilization conditions on material behavior, results are presented in graphical and tabular formats. The figures below show flexural modulus and flexural strength changes across the three groups, enabling a direct comparison of performance before and after autoclave sterilization.

Three-point bending test graphs for Group A control specimens (no sterilization)

Figure 1: Three-point bending test results for Group A (Control)

Three-point bending test graphs for Group B specimens sterilized at 121°C

Figure 2: Three-point bending test results for Group B (121°C)

Three-point bending test graphs for Group C specimens sterilized at 134°C

Figure 3: Three-point bending test results for Group C (134°C)

Group Flexural Modulus (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa)
A (Control) 3001 110.4
B (121°C) 3272 102.7
C (134°C) 3216 107.2

Table 1: Mean flexural modulus and flexural strength values for each group (n = 6)

Conclusions

Steam autoclave sterilization at 121°C and 134°C produced only minor changes in the flexural modulus and flexural strength of 3D-printed specimens made with Custom Guide Resin. Flexural modulus showed an increase after sterilization, but the change was not statistically significant, suggesting that autoclaving does not adversely affect stiffness.

A small reduction in flexural strength was observed after sterilization; however, values remained within clinically acceptable limits. The decrease was less pronounced at 134°C, suggesting that the 134°C protocol may be preferable when prioritizing mechanical stability. Importantly, differences between the two sterilization protocols were limited, indicating that both can be used confidently in clinical practice.

Overall, these findings support that Custom Guide Resin maintains mechanical integrity after autoclave sterilization and remains a reliable material choice for guided implant surgery where sterile workflow and mechanical performance are essential.

References

  1. Karami, D.; Alborzinia, H. R.; Amid, R.; Kadkhodazadeh, M.; Yousefi, N.; Badakhshan, S. In-Office Guided Implant Placement for Prosthetically Driven Implant Surgery. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction 2017, 10(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1584891
  2. Younes, F.; Cosyn, J.; De Bruyckere, T.; Cleymaet, R.; Bouckaert, E.; Eghbali, A. A Randomized Controlled Study on the Accuracy of Free-Handed, Pilot-Drill Guided and Fully Guided Implant Surgery in Partially Edentulous Patients. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2018, 45(6), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12897
  3. Sennhenn-Kirchner, S.; Weustermann, S.; Mergeryan, H.; Jacobs, H. G.; Borg-von Zepelin, M.; Kirchner, B. Preoperative Sterilization and Disinfection of Drill Guide Templates. Clinical Oral Investigations 2007, 12(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0153-9
  4. ISO 11139:2018 Sterilization of health care products—Vocabulary of terms used in sterilization and related equipment and process standards. https://www.iso.org/standard/66262.html
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities (2008). https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-and-sterilization/index.html
  6. Han, A.; Tsoi, J. K. H.; Matinlinna, J. P.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Z. Effects of Different Sterilization Methods on Surface Characteristics and Biofilm Formation on Zirconia In Vitro. Dental Materials 2018, 34(2), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.11.012
  7. Carvalho, F. G.; Gonçalves, L. S.; Carlo, H. L.; Soares, C. J.; Correr-Sobrinho, L.; Puppin-Rontani, R. M. Influence of Sterilization Method on the Bond Strength of Caries-Affected Dentin. Braz. Oral Res. 2009, 23(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-83242009000100003

 

Learn more about our dental 3D printing resin solutions designed for accuracy, safety, and regulatory compliance.

#SurgicalGuideResin #DentalSurgicalGuide #GuidedImplantSurgery #ImplantDentistry #DentalImplants #DigitalDentistry #Dental3DPrinting #Dental3DPrintedGuides #3DPrintedSurgicalGuide #AutoclaveSterilization #SteamSterilization #DentalSterilization #MedicalDeviceSterilization #InfectionControl #CDCGuidelines #ISO11139 #FlexuralStrength #FlexuralModulus #ThreePointBendingTest #DentalMaterials #BiocompatibleResin #CustomGuideResin #CustomResinSolutions