Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material.
3D printing
Additive manufacturing
Cleaning method
Fracture load
Post-processing
Two-body wear
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
14
10
2020
accepted:
19
03
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the impact of different cleaning methods on the fracture load and two-body wear of additively manufactured three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) for long-term temporary use, compared to the respective outcomes of milled provisional PMMA FDPs. Shape congruent three-unit FDPs were 3D printed using three different resin-based materials [FPT, GCT, NMF] or milled [TEL] (N = 48, n = 16 per group). After printing, the FDPs were cleaned using: Isopropanol (ISO), Yellow Magic 7 (YEL), or centrifugal force (CEN). Chewing simulation was carried out with a vertical load of 50 N (480,000 × 5 °C/55 °C). Two-body wear and fracture load were measured. Data were analyzed using global univariate ANOVA with partial eta squared, Kruskal-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman's rho test (p < 0.05). TEL showed less wear resistance than FPT (p = 0.001) for all cleaning methods tested. Concerning vertical material loss, NMF and GCT were in the same range of value (p = 0.419-0.997), except within FDPs cleaned in ISO (p = 0.021). FPT showed no impact of cleaning method on wear resistance (p = 0.219-0.692). TEL (p < 0.001) showed the highest and FPT (p < 0.001) the lowest fracture load. Regarding the cleaning methods, specimens treated with ISO showed lower fracture load than specimens cleaned with CEN (p = 0.044) or YEL (p = 0.036). The material selection and the cleaning method can have an impact on two-body wear and fracture load results. Printed restorations showed superior two-body wear resistance compared to milled FDPs but lower fracture load values. Regarding cleaning methods, ISO showed a negative effect on fracture load compared to the other methods tested.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33811531
doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03905-9
pii: 10.1007/s00784-021-03905-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5987-5996Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
van Noort R (2012) The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 28:3–12
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
pubmed: 18469768
Bae E-J, Jeong I-D, Kim W-C, Kim J-H (2017) A comparative study of additive and subtractive manufacturing for dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent 118:187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.11.004
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.11.004
pubmed: 28089336
Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KT, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B 143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
Ligon SC, Liska R, Stampfl J, Gurr M, Mulhaupt R (2017) Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev 117:10212–10290. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074
pubmed: 28756658
pmcid: 5553103
Bhargav A, Sanjairaj V, Rosa V, Feng LW, Fuh YHJ (2018) Applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 106:2058–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33961
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33961
pubmed: 28736923
Reyes A, Turkyilmaz I, Prihoda TJ (2015) Accuracy of surgical guides made from conventional and a combination of digital scanning and rapid prototyping techniques. J Prosthet Dent 113:295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.018
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.018
pubmed: 25681352
Abe Y, Maki K (2005) Possibilities and limitation of CAD/CAM based orthodontic treatment. Int Congr Ser 1281(Complete):1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.03.105
doi: 10.1016/j.ics.2005.03.105
Lauren M, McIntyre F (2008) A new computer-assisted method for design and fabrication of occlusal splints. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 133(4, Supplement):S130–S135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.018
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.018
Jin SJ, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim WC (2019) Accuracy of dental replica models using photopolymer materials in additive manufacturing: in vitro three-dimensional evaluation. J Prosthodont 28:e557–e562. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12928
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12928
pubmed: 29968424
Sykes LM, Parrott AM, Owen CP, Snaddon DR (2004) Applications of rapid prototyping technology in maxillofacial prosthetics. Int J Prosthodont 17:454–459
pubmed: 15382782
Reymus M, Fabritius R, Keßler A, Hickel R, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B (2020) Fracture load of 3D-printed fixed dental prostheses compared with milled and conventionally fabricated ones: the impact of resin material, build direction, post-curing, and artificial aging—an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 24:701–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02952-7
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02952-7
pubmed: 31127429
Alharbi N, Alharbi S, Cuijpers V, Osman RB, Wismeijer D (2018) Three-dimensional evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed interim restorations fabricated on different finish line designs. J Prosthod Res 62:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.09.002
Puebla K, Arcaute K, Quintana R, Wicker RB (2012) Effects of environmental conditions, aging, and build orientations on the mechanical properties of ASTM type I specimens manufactured via stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp 18:374–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541211250373
doi: 10.1108/13552541211250373
Reymus M, Luemkemann N, Stawarczyk B (2019) 3D-printed material for temporary restorations: impact of print layer thickness and post-curing method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent 22(3):231–237
pubmed: 31463487
Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ (2016) 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 32:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018
pubmed: 26494268
Taormina G, Sciancalepore C, Messori M, Bondioli F (2018) 3D printing processes for photocurable polymeric materials: technologies, materials, and future trends. J Appl Biomater Funct 16:151–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/2280800018764770
doi: 10.1177/2280800018764770
Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D (2016) Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent 115:760–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.002
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.002
pubmed: 26803175
Unkovskiy A, Bui PH, Schille C, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Huettig F, Spintzyk S (2018) Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin. Dent Mater 34:e324–e333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.011
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.011
pubmed: 30293688
Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL, Bertassoni LE (2018) 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 34:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
pubmed: 29110921
Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N (2015) Post-irradiation hardness development, chemical softening, and thermal stability of bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites. J Dent 43:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.004
pubmed: 25511301
Chladek G, Basa K, Żmudzki J, Malara P, Nowak AJ, Kasperski J (2016) Influence of aging solutions on wear resistance and hardness of selected resin-based dental composites. Acta Bioeng Biomech 18:43–52. https://doi.org/10.5277/ABB-00434-2015-03
doi: 10.5277/ABB-00434-2015-03
pubmed: 27840447
Deepa CS, Krishnan VK (2000) Effect of resin matrix ratio, storage medium, and time upon the physical properties of a radiopaque dental composite. J Biomater Appl 14:296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/088532820001400306
doi: 10.1177/088532820001400306
pubmed: 10656545
McKinney JE, Wu W (1985) Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 64:1326–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345850640111601
doi: 10.1177/00220345850640111601
pubmed: 2936780
Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T (2008) Evaluation of flowable resin composite surfaces eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. Dent Mater J 27:455–465. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.27.455
doi: 10.4012/dmj.27.455
pubmed: 18717176
Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Forjanic M, Zellweger G, Rousson V (2008) Wear of ceramic and antagonist—a systematic evaluation of influencing factors in vitro. Dent Mater 24:433–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.016
pubmed: 17720238
Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A (2013) Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed 20:113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
Nishino T, Asao T, Nagamatsu H, Kojo T, Kakigawa H, Kozono Y, Uchida Y (2001) Wearing behaviors of a hybrid composite resin for crown and bridge. Dent Mater J 20:216–226. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.20.216
doi: 10.4012/dmj.20.216
pubmed: 11806156
Heintze SD (2006) How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater 22:712–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002
pubmed: 16574212
Güth JF, Erdelt K, Keul C, Burian G, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2020) In vivo wear of CAD-CAM Composite versus lithium disilicate full coverage first-molar restorations: a pilot study over 2 years. Clin Oral Investig. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03294-5 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03294-5
Loomans B, Opdam N, Attin T, Bartlett D, Edelhoff D, Frankenberger R, Benic G, Ramseyer S, Wetselaar P, Sterenborg B, Hickel R, Pallesen U, Mehta S, Banerji S, Lussi A, Wilson N (2017) Severe tooth wear: European consensus statement on management guidelines. J Adhes Dent 19(2):111–119. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38102
doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a38102
pubmed: 28439579
Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC (2003) Influence of filler loading on the two-body wear of a dental composite. J Oral Rehabil 30:729–737. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01068.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01068.x
pubmed: 12791160
Kumar SR, Patnaik A, Bhat IK (2020) Factors influencing mechanical and wear performance of dental composite: a review. Mater Werkst 51:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/mawe.201900029
doi: 10.1002/mawe.201900029
Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Trottmann A, Schmutz F, Roos M, Hämmerle C (2013) Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent 109:325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60309-1
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60309-1
pubmed: 23684283
Lim B-S, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Adey JD (2002) Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater 18:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00103-2
doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00103-2
pubmed: 11740959
Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO (1992) Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 8:305–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90105-L
doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90105-L
pubmed: 1303372
Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M (2014) Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent 2014:783948. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/783948
doi: 10.1155/2014/783948
pubmed: 24817888
pmcid: 4000974
Atai M, Watts DC, Atai Z (2005) Shrinkage strain-rates of dental resin-monomer and composite systems. Biomaterials 26:5015–5020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.022
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.022
pubmed: 15769537
Gonçalves F, Kawano Y, Braga RR (2010) Contraction stress related to composite inorganic content. Dent Mater 26:704–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.015
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.015
pubmed: 20378161
Schneider LFJ, Moraes RR, Cavalcante LM, Sinhoreti MAC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S (2008) Cross-link density evaluation through softening tests: effect of ethanol concentration. Dent Mater 24:199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.010
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.010
pubmed: 17544496
Asmussen E, Peutzfeld A (2001) Influence of pulse-delay curing on softening of polymer structures. J Dent Res 80:1570–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345010800061801
doi: 10.1177/00220345010800061801
pubmed: 11499515