Contemporary provisionalisation with 3D printing

Dr Andrew Ip

Fri. 14. August 2026

save

3D printing in dental practice is becoming increasingly popular owing to its relatively low barrier to entry and excellent versatility. Improvements in hardware and software have allowed clinicians to design and manufacture personalised restorations and appliances in-house, achieving rapid turnaround times that are difficult to match with subtractive manufacturing. Applications include provisional and definitive fixed restorations, removable dentures, surgical guides, custom trays, aligners, hard- and soft-tissue regeneration scaffolds and occlusal splints.¹

At the core of the adoption of CAD/CAM in dentistry is the hope that users can increase efficiency and reduce financial burden without compromising patient outcomes. In this article, two in-house 3D-printing workflows for provisionalising partially edentulous spaces will be presented. While the clinical situations described are relatively straightforward, the way in which they are addressed may be new to some readers.

Fig. 1a: Denture base and tooth designed as separate components in Medit Design.

Fig. 1b: Denture tooth prepared for printing in Composer.

Fig. 1c: Denture tooth printed using the Max 2 and Max Crown Kit.

Case 1: The missing molar

A 25-year-old woman presented with a missing tooth #36. After assessment, it was concluded that there was sufficient hard- and soft-tissue quality and quantity for dental implant placement. Implant treatment was planned, but the patient requested a temporary replacement during the healing period. A removable flexible partial denture was offered as a provisional appliance.

Although scientific data on 3D-printed flexible denture materials remains limited, in vitro studies comparing denture base materials for digital and conventional fabrication have reported material-dependent differences in surface hardness, impact strength and flexural strength.^2, 3 These findings suggest that material selection and post-processing remain critical considerations when evaluating newer products entering the market.

For this case, the denture base and tooth were designed separately in Medit Design, a generic yet versatile program (Fig. 1a). The anatomy of the missing tooth was generated by mirror imaging and resizing the contralateral molar. The denture tooth was prepared for printing in the Composer software (Asiga) and printed from dx crown (detax), a medical resin cleared for the printing of definitive single-tooth restorations. This was achieved using the Max 2 printer and Max Crown Kit (Asiga; Figs. 1b & c). The denture base was prepared for printing in Composer and printed from dx denture flex using a standard vat (Figs. 2a & b).

Prolonged alcohol-based washing has been shown to negatively affect the strength of the bond between 3D-printed crown materials and resin cement.⁴ Therefore, an alternative cleaner free of isopropyl alcohol (Rodin Universal Resin Cleaner, Pac-Dent) was used. The denture base and tooth were luted together with a dedicated dual-polymerising resin cement (3 Delta Denture Fix, DeltaMed; Fig. 3a). Light characterisation was performed with Rodin Palette 2.0 and Rodin Glaze N₂-Free before final polymerisation in the Cure unit (Asiga). The fit of the final flexible partial denture was checked on a model printed from DentaFORM model resin (Asiga) before issue (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 2a: Denture base prepared for printing in Composer.

Fig. 2b: Denture base printed on the Max 2.

Fig. 3a: Printed denture tooth and flexible denture base assembled to create the provisional partial denture.

Fig. 3b: Final flexible partial denture checked on a printed model.

Case 2: The incisor requiring extraction

A 38-year-old woman attended the surgery requesting extraction of tooth #22, which was failing despite previous endodontic therapy and multiple attempts at retreatment. Before extraction and immediate placement of a dental implant, a CBCT scan and intra-oral scan were taken. Using the preoperative intra-oral scan, a provisional retainer was planned as a contingency appliance in the event that primary stability could not be achieved.

3D-printed aligners and retainers have gained significant interest in recent years owing to their design flexibility, material-specific properties such as shape memory behaviour and reported improvements in trueness and precision compared with their traditional thermoformed counterparts.⁵ However, evidence on long-term biocompatibility remains limited, and in vitro studies have reported potential concerns regarding cytotoxicity and residual monomer release from 3D-printed aligners.^6, 7

The provisional retainer was designed in Medit Design (Fig. 4a). An offset of 0.1 mm was set, and the retainer was designed with a thickness of 0.8 mm. Support placement and slicing were performed in Composer, and supports were placed only at the retainer borders, according to the resin manufacturer’s instructions for use (Fig. 4b). The retainer was printed from dx direct aligner resin, a material cleared for the printing of aligners and retainers, on the Max 2 using an UltraGLOSS LIFT tray (Asiga) to improve the clarity of the final print and reduce the amount of post-processing required (Fig. 5a).

The retainer was washed with the supports still attached in isopropyl alcohol in an ultrasonic unit before final polymerisation in an Otoflash G171-6 (NK Optik) under nitrogen, according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Fig. 5b).

Fig. 4a: Provisional retainer design in Medit Design.

Fig. 4b: Support placement along the retainer borders in Composer.

Fig. 5a: Retainer printed on the Max 2 using an UltraGLOSS LIFT tray

Fig. 5a: Retainer after final polymerisation.

After final polymerisation, the supports were carefully trimmed with an ultrasonic blade and the borders polished. The intaglio surface of the retainer in the region of the tooth to be extracted was thinly lined with Rodin Glaze N₂-Free before direct application of a resin composite pontic (Fig. 6a). The fit of the completed provisional retainer was checked on a model printed from DentaFORM before clinical use (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6a: Completed provisional retainer incorporating a resin composite pontic.

Fig. 6b: Final provisional retainer checked on a model to confirm the fit.

Conclusion

It is important to note that, although materials and software have advanced, the clinical principles of tooth replacement have remained consistent. What has changed is the methodology used to achieve certain goals. Traditional analogue techniques could certainly have been used in these two clinical situations. However, simple CAD software and in-house 3D printing were used effectively to produce satisfactory provisional restorations. It will be interesting to see how further improvements in software, hardware and materials science change treatment workflows and patient outcomes.

Editorial note:

The list of references can be found here. This article was published in 3D printing–international magazine of dental printing technology Vol. 6, Issue 1/2026.