Cargando…

Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing

(1) The CAD/CAM technique exploiting 3D printing is becoming more and more popular in dentistry. The resins are used in all the dental specialties, including conservative dentistry, prosthodontics, surgery, and orthodontics. The interest in investigating the different properties of dental materials...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna, Malysa, Andrzej, Mikulewicz, Marcin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9783505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36556761
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15248956
_version_ 1784857593152274432
author Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
Malysa, Andrzej
Mikulewicz, Marcin
author_facet Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
Malysa, Andrzej
Mikulewicz, Marcin
author_sort Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
collection PubMed
description (1) The CAD/CAM technique exploiting 3D printing is becoming more and more popular in dentistry. The resins are used in all the dental specialties, including conservative dentistry, prosthodontics, surgery, and orthodontics. The interest in investigating the different properties of dental materials has been an aim of researchers. The purpose of the presented study was to compare the properties of two 3D-printable dental resins (both rigid, used for medical purposes). (2) Methods: Ten blocks of two-type shapes were printed on a printer designed for medical use. The tensile modulus and compression were investigated and compared. The axial compression test was performed according to the PN-EN ISO 604:2003 norm, while the tensile test was performed according to the PN-En ISO 527-1-2019 (E) norm. In the first test, the sample size of the perpendicular shape was 10 ± 0.2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm and in the second it was 75 mm, the end width 10 mm, and the thickness 2 mm. (3) Results: The statistical analysis based on ANOVA tests showed that all the obtained results were statistically significant. Both of the examined materials had similar properties and were resistant and stable in shape. The tensile modulus and compression tests performed on them gave similar results. They also showed high durability to compression and tensility. (4) Conclusions: Both of the examined materials were durable and rigid materials. BioMed Amber was more resistant to compression, while Dental LT clear was more resistant in the tensility test. Although both resins had similar physical properties, it is still disputable whether the chosen materials could be used interchangeably.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9783505
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97835052022-12-24 Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna Malysa, Andrzej Mikulewicz, Marcin Materials (Basel) Article (1) The CAD/CAM technique exploiting 3D printing is becoming more and more popular in dentistry. The resins are used in all the dental specialties, including conservative dentistry, prosthodontics, surgery, and orthodontics. The interest in investigating the different properties of dental materials has been an aim of researchers. The purpose of the presented study was to compare the properties of two 3D-printable dental resins (both rigid, used for medical purposes). (2) Methods: Ten blocks of two-type shapes were printed on a printer designed for medical use. The tensile modulus and compression were investigated and compared. The axial compression test was performed according to the PN-EN ISO 604:2003 norm, while the tensile test was performed according to the PN-En ISO 527-1-2019 (E) norm. In the first test, the sample size of the perpendicular shape was 10 ± 0.2 mm × 10 ± 0.2 mm × 4 ± 0.2 mm and in the second it was 75 mm, the end width 10 mm, and the thickness 2 mm. (3) Results: The statistical analysis based on ANOVA tests showed that all the obtained results were statistically significant. Both of the examined materials had similar properties and were resistant and stable in shape. The tensile modulus and compression tests performed on them gave similar results. They also showed high durability to compression and tensility. (4) Conclusions: Both of the examined materials were durable and rigid materials. BioMed Amber was more resistant to compression, while Dental LT clear was more resistant in the tensility test. Although both resins had similar physical properties, it is still disputable whether the chosen materials could be used interchangeably. MDPI 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9783505/ /pubmed/36556761 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15248956 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
Malysa, Andrzej
Mikulewicz, Marcin
Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title_full Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title_fullStr Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title_short Comparison of the Compression and Tensile Modulus of Two Chosen Resins Used in Dentistry for 3D Printing
title_sort comparison of the compression and tensile modulus of two chosen resins used in dentistry for 3d printing
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9783505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36556761
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15248956
work_keys_str_mv AT paradowskastolarzanna comparisonofthecompressionandtensilemodulusoftwochosenresinsusedindentistryfor3dprinting
AT malysaandrzej comparisonofthecompressionandtensilemodulusoftwochosenresinsusedindentistryfor3dprinting
AT mikulewiczmarcin comparisonofthecompressionandtensilemodulusoftwochosenresinsusedindentistryfor3dprinting