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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |