FabDigitFabDigit

Dental Surgical Guide Resin vs Formlabs Tough 2000

Polymer · grade comparison

Dental Surgical Guide Resin and Tough 2000 are both polymer grades. Dental Surgical Guide Resin is the stronger of the two: tensile strength 55 MPa (7.98 ksi) against 50 MPa (7.25 ksi) for Tough 2000, about 10% more. In exchange, Tough 2000 is the more ductile: elongation 22% versus 6% for Dental Surgical Guide Resin, and Dental Surgical Guide Resin is harder (85 Shore D vs 80 Shore D). Tough 2000 is stiffer (2.4 GPa vs 2.2 GPa) and Dental Surgical Guide Resin runs hotter in service (70°C vs 50°C continuous). On the shop floor, Tough 2000 sits in a lower cost tier (standard, $$) than Dental Surgical Guide Resin (high, $$$$).

Dental Surgical Guide ResinChoose it when strength drives the design, or when the part sees heat.

Tough 2000Choose it when the part is bent, formed or impact-loaded, or when cost is the deciding factor.

Dental Surgical Guide Resin vs Tough 2000: properties

Dental Surgical Guide ResinTough 2000

Mechanical

Strength, stiffness, ductility and hardness at room temperature.

Elastic (Young's) Modulus

2.2 GPa0.32 Msi
2.4 GPa0.35 Msi

Poisson's Ratio

0.35
0.39

Tensile Strength (Ultimate)

55 MPa8 ksi
50 MPa7.3 ksi

Elongation at Break

6%
22%

Compressive Strength

110 MPa16 ksi
70 MPa10.2 ksi

Flexural Strength

85 MPa12.3 ksi
68 MPa9.9 ksi

Flexural Modulus

2.3 GPa0.33 Msi
1.9 GPa0.28 Msi

Fracture Toughness (K_IC)

1.2 MPa·√m1.1 ksi·√in
—

Izod Impact, Notched

22 J/m0.41 ft·lbf/in
38 J/m0.71 ft·lbf/in

Hardness, Shore D

85 Shore D
80 Shore D

Hardness, Rockwell M

92 HRM
—

Yield Strength (0.2% offset)

—
44 MPa6.4 ksi

Hardness, Rockwell R

—
103 HRR

Same in both: Compressive Modulus 2.1 GPa0.3 Msi

Physical

Density and transition temperatures.

Glass Transition (Tg)

90°C194 °F
58°C136 °F

Water Absorption (24 h)

0.6%
0.8%

Light Transmission

82%
—

Same in both: Density 1.15 g/cm³0.04 lb/in³ · Water Absorption (Saturation) 1.8% · Refractive Index 1.51

Thermal

How each material carries heat and how hot it can run.

Specific Heat Capacity

1,450 J/kg·K0.35 BTU/lb·°F
1,500 J/kg·K0.36 BTU/lb·°F

Thermal Expansion (CTE, 20–100 °C)

80 µm/m·K44.4 µin/in·°F
110 µm/m·K61.1 µin/in·°F

Max Service Temperature (continuous)

70°C158 °F
50°C122 °F

Heat Deflection Temp. @ 0.45 MPa

78°C172 °F
49°C120 °F

Heat Deflection Temp. @ 1.8 MPa

62°C144 °F
42°C108 °F

Max Service Temperature (short-term)

121°C250 °F
70°C158 °F

Same in both: Thermal Conductivity 0.2 W/m·K0.12 BTU/hr·ft·°F · Min Service Temperature -20°C-4 °F · Limiting Oxygen Index 19%

Electrical

Conductivity and insulation.

Electrical Resistivity

—
1×10¹² Ω·m3.94×10¹⁹ µΩ·in

Dielectric Strength

—
15 kV/mm381 V/mil

Dissipation Factor (1 MHz)

—
0.03

Surface Resistivity

—
1×10¹⁴ Ω

Same in both: Dielectric Constant (1 MHz) 3.4 · Volume Resistivity 1×10¹⁴ Ω·cm

Chemical & Environmental

Corrosion and environmental resistance (0–100 scores).

UV / Weathering Resistance

35 / 100
30 / 100

Corrosion Resistance

—
55 / 100

Manufacturability

FabDigit workshop ratings (0–100 scores) — how each material behaves on the machine.

Mold Shrinkage

1.2%
—

Weldability

—
5 / 100

Formability (cold)

—
10 / 100

Same in both: Machinability 55 / 100 · Polishability 65 / 100

Sustainability

Primary-production footprint per kilogram.

Embodied Energy (primary production)

105 MJ/kg45,142 BTU/lb
115 MJ/kg49,441 BTU/lb

Embodied Carbon (primary production)

5.5 kg CO₂/kg
6 kg CO₂/kg

Embodied Water

—
260 L/kg31.2 gal/lb

Same in both: Typical Recycled Content 0%

Common Calculations

Ratios derived from the values above.

Specific Strength (UTS / density)

48 kN·m/kg
43 kN·m/kg

Specific Stiffness (E / density)

1.9 MN·m/kg
2.1 MN·m/kg

Same in both: Thermal Diffusivity 0.1 mm²/s · Thermal Shock Resistance Index 0

Strength versus weight

Yield strength against density for every polymer grade in the FabDigit library; the compared grades are highlighted. Up and left is stronger for its weight.

0.1110100123Density (g/cm³)Yield strength (MPa) — log scaleFormlabs Tough 2000

Manufacturing and finishing

CapabilityDental Surgical Guide ResinTough 2000
Injection molding—Yes
3D printing—Yes
Default condition—ABS-like
Relative cost$$$$ High$$ Standard
Min. machined wall——
Best machined surface——
Chrome Plating (Plastic)—Yes
Conductive Coating—Yes
Dyeing (Nylon)—Yes
EMI Shielding Coating—Yes
Painting—Yes
Primer Coating—Yes
Soft Touch Coating—Yes
Spray Painting—Yes
Tinted Coating—Yes
UV Coating—Yes
Vacuum Metallization—Yes
Waterproof Coating—Yes

Dental Surgical Guide Resin vs Tough 2000 — frequently asked

Is Dental Surgical Guide Resin stronger than Tough 2000?

Yes. Dental Surgical Guide Resin has a typical tensile strength of 55 MPa (7.98 ksi) against 50 MPa (7.25 ksi) for Tough 2000 — about 10% more.

Which is cheaper, Dental Surgical Guide Resin or Tough 2000?

Tough 2000 is the lower-cost material: it sits in the standard tier ($$) while Dental Surgical Guide Resin is high ($$$$). Part price depends far more on geometry, tolerance and quantity than on raw stock — upload a CAD file for a live quote.

When should I choose Dental Surgical Guide Resin over Tough 2000?

Pick Dental Surgical Guide Resin when strength drives the design, or when the part sees heat. Pick Tough 2000 when the part is bent, formed or impact-loaded, or when cost is the deciding factor.

Ready to make it?

Upload a CAD file and FabDigit prices the part in Dental Surgical Guide Resin and Tough 2000 side by side — material, machining time, tolerance and finish in one quote. Certified material data ships with the order on request.

Typical handbook values for the conditions named above, normalised for comparison. Hardness on non-Brinell scales is converted approximately for charting only. Request certified data with your order for design-critical properties.