Constantin Berli1, Florian M Thieringer2, Neha Sharma3, Johannes A Müller4, Philipp Dedem4, Jens Fischer5, Nadja Rohr6. 1. Teaching Assistant, Department of Oral Surgery, University Center for Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Assistant Medical Director, Oral- and Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery and 3D Print Lab, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Research Associate, 3D Print Lab, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Senior Teaching Assistant, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Professor, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Research Associate, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: nadja.rohr@unibas.ch.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Comparisons of the material qualities of pressed, milled, and 3D-printed occlusal devices are sparse, complicating informed decisions on material choice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the material properties of pressed, milled, and 3D-printed resins, as well as how these are affected by thermal aging. These data were then used to estimate the likely clinical performance of the tested materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three pressed (ProBase Cold; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Palapress clear; Kulzer GmbH, Aesthetic Blue clear; Candulor), 3 milled (Temp Premium Flexible Transpa; Zirkonzahn, idodentine PMMA transparent; Unión Dental S.A., Yamahachi PMMA clear; Yamahachi Dental MFG), and three 3D-printed (Freeprint splint; DETAX GmbH, LuxaPrint Ortho Plus; DMG GmbH, Nextdent Ortho Clear; Vertex-Dental B.V.) resin materials were evaluated. Flexural strength, Martens hardness (HM), Vickers hardness (HV), water sorption, water solubility, and surface topography were analyzed. The tests were carried out after 50 hours of water storage at 37 °C (baseline) and after simulated aging (50 hours of water storage at 37 °C, followed by 20 000 thermocycles [TC] at 5 °C and 55 °C). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean flexural strength values were 92.8 to 99.5 MPa for pressed, 95.1 to 122.0 MPa for milled, and 19.5 to 91.3 MPa for 3D-printed materials. After aging, these values were 87.6 to 93.5 MPa for pressed, 93.1 to 116.0 MPa for milled, and 13.0 to 63.3 MPa for 3D-printed resins. The mean HM values were 130.1 to 134.1 N/mm for pressed and 130.3 to 158.5 N/mm for milled resins. After aging, the mean HM ranged from 121.6 to 124.2 N/mm for pressed and 116.2 to 149.7 N/mm for milled resins. The mean HV values were 18.2 to 19.9 for pressed and 18.4 to 23.0 for milled resins before aging and 16.9 to 18.7 for pressed and 17.3 to 22.3 N/mm for milled resins after aging. Printed resins could not be measured. At baseline, the mean modulus of elasticity ranged from 4.6 to 4.8 GPa for pressed and from 4.7 to 5.3 GPa for milled resins. For 3D-printed resins, only 1 material could be measured (3.7 GPa). The mean sorption values were 8.6 to 9.2 μg/mm3 for pressed, 7.9 to 10.5 μg/mm3 for milled, and 9.2 to 21.2 μg/mm3 for additive resins. After aging, these values were 21.1 to 22.6 μg/mm3 for pressed, 20.5 to 23.7 μg/mm3 for milled, and 19.4 to 45.5 μg/mm3 for 3D-printed resins. The mean solubility values ranged from 0.3 to 1.4 μg/mm3 for pressed, 0.4 to 1.7 μg/mm3 for milled, and -3.5 to 11 μg/mm3 for 3D-printed materials. CONCLUSIONS: Pressed and milled resins can be considered equivalent in terms of their material properties. Relative to the pressed and milled resins, the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength and hardness values and higher water sorption and solubility.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Comparisons of the material qualities of pressed, milled, and 3D-printed occlusal devices are sparse, complicating informed decisions on material choice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the material properties of pressed, milled, and 3D-printed resins, as well as how these are affected by thermal aging. These data were then used to estimate the likely clinical performance of the tested materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three pressed (ProBase Cold; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Palapress clear; Kulzer GmbH, Aesthetic Blue clear; Candulor), 3 milled (Temp Premium Flexible Transpa; Zirkonzahn, idodentine PMMA transparent; Unión Dental S.A., Yamahachi PMMA clear; Yamahachi Dental MFG), and three 3D-printed (Freeprint splint; DETAX GmbH, LuxaPrint Ortho Plus; DMG GmbH, Nextdent Ortho Clear; Vertex-Dental B.V.) resin materials were evaluated. Flexural strength, Martens hardness (HM), Vickers hardness (HV), water sorption, water solubility, and surface topography were analyzed. The tests were carried out after 50 hours of water storage at 37 °C (baseline) and after simulated aging (50 hours of water storage at 37 °C, followed by 20 000 thermocycles [TC] at 5 °C and 55 °C). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean flexural strength values were 92.8 to 99.5 MPa for pressed, 95.1 to 122.0 MPa for milled, and 19.5 to 91.3 MPa for 3D-printed materials. After aging, these values were 87.6 to 93.5 MPa for pressed, 93.1 to 116.0 MPa for milled, and 13.0 to 63.3 MPa for 3D-printed resins. The mean HM values were 130.1 to 134.1 N/mm for pressed and 130.3 to 158.5 N/mm for milled resins. After aging, the mean HM ranged from 121.6 to 124.2 N/mm for pressed and 116.2 to 149.7 N/mm for milled resins. The mean HV values were 18.2 to 19.9 for pressed and 18.4 to 23.0 for milled resins before aging and 16.9 to 18.7 for pressed and 17.3 to 22.3 N/mm for milled resins after aging. Printed resins could not be measured. At baseline, the mean modulus of elasticity ranged from 4.6 to 4.8 GPa for pressed and from 4.7 to 5.3 GPa for milled resins. For 3D-printed resins, only 1 material could be measured (3.7 GPa). The mean sorption values were 8.6 to 9.2 μg/mm3 for pressed, 7.9 to 10.5 μg/mm3 for milled, and 9.2 to 21.2 μg/mm3 for additive resins. After aging, these values were 21.1 to 22.6 μg/mm3 for pressed, 20.5 to 23.7 μg/mm3 for milled, and 19.4 to 45.5 μg/mm3 for 3D-printed resins. The mean solubility values ranged from 0.3 to 1.4 μg/mm3 for pressed, 0.4 to 1.7 μg/mm3 for milled, and -3.5 to 11 μg/mm3 for 3D-printed materials. CONCLUSIONS: Pressed and milled resins can be considered equivalent in terms of their material properties. Relative to the pressed and milled resins, the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength and hardness values and higher water sorption and solubility.
Authors: Ralf Bürgers; Andrea Schubert; Jonas Müller; Sebastian Krohn; Matthias Rödiger; Andreas Leha; Torsten Wassmann Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2022-05-15
Authors: Julian Nold; Christian Wesemann; Laura Rieg; Lara Binder; Siegbert Witkowski; Benedikt Christopher Spies; Ralf Joachim Kohal Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Mohammed M Gad; Saleh Z Alshehri; Shahad A Alhamid; Alanoud Albarrak; Soban Q Khan; Faris A Alshahrani; Firas K Alqarawi Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2022-03-09