Cargando…

Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) enable subtractive or additive fabrication of temporary fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The present in-vitro study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of both milled and additive manufactured three-unit FDPs and bar-shaped, ISO-co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nold, Julian, Wesemann, Christian, Rieg, Laura, Binder, Lara, Witkowski, Siegbert, Spies, Benedikt Christopher, Kohal, Ralf Joachim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7825647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430271
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14020259
_version_ 1783640355390881792
author Nold, Julian
Wesemann, Christian
Rieg, Laura
Binder, Lara
Witkowski, Siegbert
Spies, Benedikt Christopher
Kohal, Ralf Joachim
author_facet Nold, Julian
Wesemann, Christian
Rieg, Laura
Binder, Lara
Witkowski, Siegbert
Spies, Benedikt Christopher
Kohal, Ralf Joachim
author_sort Nold, Julian
collection PubMed
description Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) enable subtractive or additive fabrication of temporary fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The present in-vitro study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of both milled and additive manufactured three-unit FDPs and bar-shaped, ISO-conform specimens. Polymethylmethacrylate was used for subtractive manufacturing and a light-curing resin for additive manufacturing. Three (bars) and four (FDPs) different printing orientations were evaluated. All bars (n = 32) were subjected to a three-point bending test after 24 h of water storage. Half of the 80 FDPs were dynamically loaded (250,000 cycles, 98 N) with simultaneous hydrothermal cycling. Non-aged (n = 40) and surviving FDPs (n = 11) were subjected to static loading until fracture. Regarding the bar-shaped specimens, the milled group showed the highest flexural strength (114 ± 10 MPa, p = 0.001), followed by the vertically printed group (97 ± 10 MPa, p < 0.007). Subtractive manufactured FDPs revealed the highest fracture strength (1060 ± 89 N) with all specimens surviving dynamic loading. During artificial aging, 29 of 32 printed specimens failed. The present findings indicate that both printing orientation and aging affect the strength of additive manufactured specimens. The used resin and settings cannot be recommended for additive manufacturing of long-term temporary three-unit FDPs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7825647
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78256472021-01-24 Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth Nold, Julian Wesemann, Christian Rieg, Laura Binder, Lara Witkowski, Siegbert Spies, Benedikt Christopher Kohal, Ralf Joachim Materials (Basel) Article Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) enable subtractive or additive fabrication of temporary fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The present in-vitro study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of both milled and additive manufactured three-unit FDPs and bar-shaped, ISO-conform specimens. Polymethylmethacrylate was used for subtractive manufacturing and a light-curing resin for additive manufacturing. Three (bars) and four (FDPs) different printing orientations were evaluated. All bars (n = 32) were subjected to a three-point bending test after 24 h of water storage. Half of the 80 FDPs were dynamically loaded (250,000 cycles, 98 N) with simultaneous hydrothermal cycling. Non-aged (n = 40) and surviving FDPs (n = 11) were subjected to static loading until fracture. Regarding the bar-shaped specimens, the milled group showed the highest flexural strength (114 ± 10 MPa, p = 0.001), followed by the vertically printed group (97 ± 10 MPa, p < 0.007). Subtractive manufactured FDPs revealed the highest fracture strength (1060 ± 89 N) with all specimens surviving dynamic loading. During artificial aging, 29 of 32 printed specimens failed. The present findings indicate that both printing orientation and aging affect the strength of additive manufactured specimens. The used resin and settings cannot be recommended for additive manufacturing of long-term temporary three-unit FDPs. MDPI 2021-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7825647/ /pubmed/33430271 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14020259 Text en © 2021 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
Nold, Julian
Wesemann, Christian
Rieg, Laura
Binder, Lara
Witkowski, Siegbert
Spies, Benedikt Christopher
Kohal, Ralf Joachim
Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title_full Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title_fullStr Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title_full_unstemmed Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title_short Does Printing Orientation Matter? In-Vitro Fracture Strength of Temporary Fixed Dental Prostheses after a 1-Year Simulation in the Artificial Mouth
title_sort does printing orientation matter? in-vitro fracture strength of temporary fixed dental prostheses after a 1-year simulation in the artificial mouth
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7825647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430271
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14020259
work_keys_str_mv AT noldjulian doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT wesemannchristian doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT rieglaura doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT binderlara doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT witkowskisiegbert doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT spiesbenediktchristopher doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth
AT kohalralfjoachim doesprintingorientationmatterinvitrofracturestrengthoftemporaryfixeddentalprosthesesaftera1yearsimulationintheartificialmouth