Influence of Pre-Treatment and Artificial Aging on the Retention of 3D-Printed Permanent Composite Crowns.
3D printing
CAD-CAM
adhesive bonding
composite
permanent crowns
polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN)
pull-off test
resin nano ceramic (RNC)
Journal
Biomedicines
ISSN: 2227-9059
Titre abrégé: Biomedicines
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101691304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Sep 2022
04 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
02
08
2022
revised:
28
08
2022
accepted:
29
08
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this in vitro study is to investigate the bonding properties of a 3D-printable permanent composite material in comparison to milled composite materials. The tested materials are 3D-printed BEGO VarseoSmile Crown plus (VA1_ab, VA1_nt, VA2_ab, VA2_nt), Vita Enamic (EN1, EN2), and 3M Lava Ultimate (UL1, UL2) (N = 64; n = 8). For this purpose, all crowns are luted to polymer tooth stumps #46 (FDI) using dual-curing luting composite, strictly according to the manufacturer’s instructions. VA1_ab and VA2_ab are additionally airborne-particle abraded. 4 groups (VA2_ab, VA2_nt, EN2, UL2) are artificially aged (1,200,000 cycles, 50 N, 10,000 thermocycles), whereby no specimen has failed. All 64 specimens undergo pull-off testing until retention loss. The mean forces of retention-loss is 786.6 ± 137.6 N (VA1_nt, *), 988.6 ± 212.1 N (VA2_nt, *, Ɨ), 1223.8 ± 119.2 N (VA1_ab, Ɨ, ǂ), 1051.9 ± 107.2 N (VA2_ab, *, Ɨ), 1185.9 ± 211.8 N (EN1, Ɨ, ǂ), 1485.0 ± 198.2 N EN2, ǂ), 1533.8 ± 42.4 N (UL1, ǂ), and 1521.8 ± 343.4 N (UL2, ǂ) (one-way ANOVA (Scheffé method); p < 0.05; *, Ɨ, ǂ: group distribution). No characteristic failure modes can be detected. In conclusion, all of the pull-off forces reflect retention values that seem to be sufficiently high for clinical use. Additional airborne-particle abrasion of VA does not result in significantly better retention but can be recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36140287
pii: biomedicines10092186
doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10092186
pmc: PMC9496133
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : BEGO (Bremen, Germany)
ID : Private
Références
J Dent Res. 2018 Sep;97(10):1082-1091
pubmed: 29906206
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020 May;105:103711
pubmed: 32279853
Dent Mater J. 2010 Aug;29(4):425-32
pubmed: 20668359
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Apr 14;:
pubmed: 33865557
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 May;26(5):3807-3822
pubmed: 35320383
J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(4):289-302
pubmed: 27222889
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Feb;23(2):529-538
pubmed: 29704137
Eur J Oral Sci. 2019 Apr;127(2):162-169
pubmed: 30536451
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jan;23(1):12-8
pubmed: 21443610
Dent Mater. 2010 Mar;26(3):193-206
pubmed: 19931901
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Jan 04;13(1):
pubmed: 33406617
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Jun;18 Suppl 3:193-204
pubmed: 17594382
J Oral Biosci. 2019 Jun;61(2):78-83
pubmed: 31109861
Dent Mater. 2021 Apr;37(4):701-710
pubmed: 33648744
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020 Mar;32(2):171-181
pubmed: 31943720
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):74-81
pubmed: 23735182
Dent Mater. 1985 Dec;1(6):238-42
pubmed: 3868634
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17(4):224-35
pubmed: 16231493
Gen Dent. 2020 Mar-Apr;68(2):20-25
pubmed: 32105221
Aust Dent J. 2008 Jun;53(2):145-50
pubmed: 18494970
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022 Jan;34(1):235-243
pubmed: 35040541
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Dec 24;14(1):
pubmed: 35012080
J Prosthodont Res. 2022 Jul 30;66(3):402-408
pubmed: 34565767
J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53
pubmed: 13271655
Dent Mater J. 2019 Feb 8;38(1):75-85
pubmed: 30298860
Dent Mater. 2016 Apr;32(4):499-509
pubmed: 26777092
Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019 Nov;55(1):41-50
pubmed: 30733844
Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar/Apr;33(2):160-168
pubmed: 32069340
J Clin Med. 2021 May 07;10(9):
pubmed: 34067212
Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(1):9-20
pubmed: 25911826
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017 Jul;26(4):645-653
pubmed: 28691430
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jun;22(5):1973-1983
pubmed: 29214376