Cargando…

Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study

Computer-aided design (CAD) and additive manufacturing (AM) have shown promise in facilitating the fabrication of custom trays. Due to the clinical requirements, custom tray materials should achieve good bonding to the impression/adhesive systems. This study evaluated the retention of three fused de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Yichen, Unkovskiy, Alexey, Klaue, Felix, Rupp, Frank, Geis-Gerstorfer, Juergen, Spintzyk, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30301282
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11101905
_version_ 1783367701288189952
author Xu, Yichen
Unkovskiy, Alexey
Klaue, Felix
Rupp, Frank
Geis-Gerstorfer, Juergen
Spintzyk, Sebastian
author_facet Xu, Yichen
Unkovskiy, Alexey
Klaue, Felix
Rupp, Frank
Geis-Gerstorfer, Juergen
Spintzyk, Sebastian
author_sort Xu, Yichen
collection PubMed
description Computer-aided design (CAD) and additive manufacturing (AM) have shown promise in facilitating the fabrication of custom trays. Due to the clinical requirements, custom tray materials should achieve good bonding to the impression/adhesive systems. This study evaluated the retention of three fused deposition modeling (FDM) custom tray materials to a silicone impression/adhesive system before and after gritblasting (GB) by peel-off test. CAD-designed experimental test blocks were printed by FDM using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolyester (PETG), and high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and the reference test blocks were made of a conventional light-curing resin (n = 11). Before and after GB, the surface topography of all tray materials was analysed, and the maximum strength of the test block peeled off from a silicone impression/adhesive system was measured. After GB, the arithmetic mean height (Sa) and the valley fluid retention index (Svi) of the four material groups declined (p < 0.05). The peel-off strength of each of the four material groups significantly decreased by GB (p < 0.05), but no statistical difference could be found among them before or after GB. In all peel-off tests, adhesive failure occurred at the adhesive-impression material interface. The results indicated ABS, HIPS, and PETG could provide sufficient adhesion to the adhesive as the conventional light-curing resin, and GB could reduce the roughness generated by FDM and weaken the bonding between the adhesive and the silicone impression.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6213137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62131372018-11-14 Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study Xu, Yichen Unkovskiy, Alexey Klaue, Felix Rupp, Frank Geis-Gerstorfer, Juergen Spintzyk, Sebastian Materials (Basel) Article Computer-aided design (CAD) and additive manufacturing (AM) have shown promise in facilitating the fabrication of custom trays. Due to the clinical requirements, custom tray materials should achieve good bonding to the impression/adhesive systems. This study evaluated the retention of three fused deposition modeling (FDM) custom tray materials to a silicone impression/adhesive system before and after gritblasting (GB) by peel-off test. CAD-designed experimental test blocks were printed by FDM using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolyester (PETG), and high impact polystyrene (HIPS), and the reference test blocks were made of a conventional light-curing resin (n = 11). Before and after GB, the surface topography of all tray materials was analysed, and the maximum strength of the test block peeled off from a silicone impression/adhesive system was measured. After GB, the arithmetic mean height (Sa) and the valley fluid retention index (Svi) of the four material groups declined (p < 0.05). The peel-off strength of each of the four material groups significantly decreased by GB (p < 0.05), but no statistical difference could be found among them before or after GB. In all peel-off tests, adhesive failure occurred at the adhesive-impression material interface. The results indicated ABS, HIPS, and PETG could provide sufficient adhesion to the adhesive as the conventional light-curing resin, and GB could reduce the roughness generated by FDM and weaken the bonding between the adhesive and the silicone impression. MDPI 2018-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6213137/ /pubmed/30301282 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11101905 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Xu, Yichen
Unkovskiy, Alexey
Klaue, Felix
Rupp, Frank
Geis-Gerstorfer, Juergen
Spintzyk, Sebastian
Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title_full Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title_fullStr Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title_full_unstemmed Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title_short Compatibility of a Silicone Impression/Adhesive System to FDM-Printed Tray Materials—A Laboratory Peel-off Study
title_sort compatibility of a silicone impression/adhesive system to fdm-printed tray materials—a laboratory peel-off study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213137/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30301282
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11101905
work_keys_str_mv AT xuyichen compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy
AT unkovskiyalexey compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy
AT klauefelix compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy
AT ruppfrank compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy
AT geisgerstorferjuergen compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy
AT spintzyksebastian compatibilityofasiliconeimpressionadhesivesystemtofdmprintedtraymaterialsalaboratorypeeloffstudy