Find PubMed articles where they say occlusal splint processed from conventional heat cure material is better. After that, 3D printed occlusal material is better. And lastly, milled occlusal splint is better. In surface roughness study done through profilometer.
Searching PubMed
occlusal splint surface roughness profilometer heat cure
Searching PubMed
occlusal splint surface roughness 3D printed milled profilometer
Searching the Web
PubMed occlusal splint surface roughness profilometer heat cure vs 3D printed vs milled comparison
Reading Article
PMID: 40181636
Searching PubMed
occlusal splint surface roughness conventional heat cured PMMA CAD CAM
Reading Web Page
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12951543
Searching PubMed
occlusal splint surface roughness milled CAD CAM profilometer fabrication
Searching PubMed
night guard occlusal device surface roughness 3D printing additive manufacturing profilometer Ra
Searching the Web
PubMed PMID occlusal splint "surface roughness" "profilometer" "heat cure" better lower Ra conventional vs milled vs 3D printed
Searching PubMed
occlusal splint color roughness microhardness heat cured milled 3D printed CAD CAM comparison
Searching PubMed
denture base surface roughness profilometer heat polymerized 3D printed milled PMMA
Searching the Web
pubmed occlusal splint "heat cure" "surface roughness" better lower profilometer 3D printed milled PMID site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov OR site:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Reading Article
PMID: 40585711
Reading Article
PMID: 40694394
Reading Article
PMID: 34853238
Reading Web Page
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390971187_Surface_r…
Searching PubMed
surface roughness microhardness heat-cured milled 3D-printed occlusal splints unpolished polished
Searching PubMed
3D printed occlusal splint surface roughness profilometer lower better conventional
Reading Article
PMID: 41777279
Reading Article
PMID: 39895617
I now have comprehensive data across all three categories. Let me compile the full answer.
Here is a curated list of PubMed articles organized by which fabrication method showed superior surface roughness (measured by profilometer), across occlusal splint and closely related denture base PMMA studies.
Category 1: Heat-Cure (Conventional) Shown to Be Better or Comparable
1. Ozden et al. (2025) - PMID: 39895617
Title: "Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins"
Journal: Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE)
DOI: 10.3791/67844
Key Finding: Before and after polishing, 3D-printed specimens had the highest surface roughness (Ra). Milled and heat-polymerized PMMA showed no statistically significant difference from each other after polishing - both outperformed 3D printed. The 3D-printed group remained significantly rougher than both heat-cured and milled groups (p < 0.001) even after polishing.
Relevance: This study directly supports heat-cure as being better than 3D-printed in surface roughness. When comparing unpolished surfaces, heat-cured also performed comparably to milled - making heat-cure a strong performer.
2. Uma, Lertyingyos & Lilitsuvan (2026) - PMID: 41777279
Title: "Analyzing Color, Surface Roughness, and Microhardness on the Unpolished and Polished Surfaces of Occlusal Splint Materials From Conventional and CAD-CAM Fabrication Methods"
Journal: International Journal of Dentistry
DOI: 10.1155/ijod/9002663
PMC: PMC12951543
Key Finding (Occlusal Splints specifically): Among the six materials tested (SC, HC, ML-A, ML-B, 3D-A, 3D-B), the heat-cured (HC) group ranked 3rd lowest in Ra on unpolished surfaces (Ra order from lowest to highest: ML-A 0.085 µm > ML-B 0.117 µm > HC > 3D-B > SC > 3D-A). Crucially, 3D-A had the highest roughness, and HC outperformed both 3D-printed brands. After polishing, HC also maintained strong microhardness (18.85 VHN, second only to ML-B). The paper notes: "CAD-CAM fabrication does not necessarily result in superior surface roughness."
Relevance: Directly on occlusal splints. Heat-cure outperformed both 3D-printed brands in surface roughness.
Category 2: 3D-Printed Shown to Be Better
3. Nejatidanesh et al. (2025) - PMID: 40694394
Title: "Comparative Evaluation of Surface Properties of Milled, 3D-Printed, and Conventional Denture Base Materials: Implications for Clinical Use"
Journal: International Journal of Prosthodontics
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.9285
Key Finding: Using a digital laser profilometer, 3D-printed (DentaBase) achieved Ra of 0.12 µm, which was the lowest among all groups - outperforming both milled (0.15 µm) and conventional heat-polymerized (0.16-0.20 µm). The study concluded: "Milled and 3D-printed resins demonstrated better surface properties" with 3D printed showing the absolute best roughness value.
Relevance: One of the clearest papers where 3D printing produces the lowest Ra, suggesting superiority for surface smoothness.
4. Rueda, Sepsick & Hammamy et al. (2025) - PMID: 40181636
Title: "The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Roughness, Translucency, and Staining of 3D-Printed Occlusal Device Materials"
Journal: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13476
PMC: PMC12159789
Key Finding (Occlusal Devices specifically): Using a contact profilometer on occlusal device materials specifically. When 3D-printed specimens were polished or resin-coated, they achieved surface roughness comparable to or better than conventional/milled reference specimens. Optical polish tank printing and glycerin curing further optimized smoothness. Conclusion: 3D-printed occlusal devices with proper post-processing produce competitive (and in some treatments, superior) surface quality.
Relevance: Directly on occlusal devices. Supports 3D-printed superiority when proper surface treatment is applied.
Category 3: Milled (CAD/CAM Subtractive) Shown to Be Better
5. Uma, Lertyingyos & Lilitsuvan (2026) - PMID: 41777279 (also cited above)
Title: Same as above
Key Finding here: ML-A had the lowest Ra of all six groups (0.085 µm) on unpolished occlusal splint surfaces, and ML-B had the second lowest (0.117 µm). Both milled groups outperformed heat-cured, self-cured, and both 3D-printed brands. The conclusion directly states: "The ML-B occlusal splint showed the best overall performance... low surface roughness."
Relevance: The strongest occlusal splint-specific paper showing milled is best for surface roughness.
6. Singh, Jain & Bhasin et al. (2025) - PMID: 40585711
Title: "Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Wettability, and Hardness of Conventional, Heat-Polymerized, CAD/CAM-Milled, and 3D-Printed PMMA Denture Base Resins: An In Vitro Study"
Journal: Cureus
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.85008
PMC: PMC12205262
Key Finding: Contact profilometer (Surftest SJ-210, Mitutoyo). CAD/CAM-milled specimens showed the smoothest surfaces: Ra = 0.16 ± 0.014 µm, vs 3D-printed (0.18 ± 0.016 µm) and conventional heat-polymerized (0.21 ± 0.019 µm, the roughest). Conclusion: "CAD/CAM-milled PMMA denture bases demonstrated superior surface smoothness and hardness."
Relevance: Clear ranking - milled best, heat-cure worst for surface roughness in this study.
7. Di Fiore, Meneghello et al. (2022) - PMID: 34853238
Title: "Comparison of the Flexural and Surface Properties of Milled, 3D-Printed, and Heat Polymerized PMMA Resins for Denture Bases"
Journal: Journal of Prosthodontic Research
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00116
Key Finding: Contact profilometer used. Milled (CAD) group had the lowest Ra = 0.29 ± 0.16 µm before polishing, vs heat-polymerized (CV) and 3D-printed (3D). Bacterial adhesion was also lowest for milled at 90 minutes. After polishing, all three groups showed similar Ra values. Conclusion: "The CAD group displayed... the lowest roughness before polishing."
Relevance: Well-cited study (2022) confirming milled superiority before polishing.
Summary Table
| Study (PMID) | Method Used for Roughness | Which Was Best | Specific Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ozden 2025 (39895617) | Contact profilometer | Heat-cure ≈ Milled (both better than 3D) | 3D-printed significantly rougher before and after polishing |
| Uma 2026 (41777279) | Profilometer (Ra, µm) | Milled (ML-A = 0.085 µm) | HC outperformed 3D-printed; milled best overall |
| Nejatidanesh 2025 (40694394) | Digital laser profilometer | 3D-printed (0.12 µm) | Lowest Ra of all groups |
| Rueda 2025 (40181636) | Contact profilometer | 3D-printed (post-treated) | Polished/resin-coated 3D achieves best roughness |
| Singh 2025 (40585711) | Contact profilometer (Mitutoyo SJ-210) | Milled (0.16 µm) | Milled < 3D-printed < heat-cure for Ra |
| Di Fiore 2022 (34853238) | Contact profilometer | Milled (0.29 µm) | Milled lowest Ra before polishing |
Important clinical note: The outcome varies depending on material brand, whether specimens are polished, and the specific profilometer protocol. No single fabrication method dominates universally - context and post-processing matter significantly, which is why the literature is distributed across all three categories.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.