Christoph J Roser1, Thomas Rückschloß2, Andreas Zenthöfer3, Peter Rammelsberg3, Christopher J Lux4, Stefan Rues3. 1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. christoph.roser@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether artificial CAD/CAM processed (computer-aided design/manufacturing) teeth could be a feasible option for the production of dental in vitro models for biomechanical testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks (n = 10 per group) made from two different CAD/CAM-materials, one fiber-reinforced composite (FRC; Trinia, Bicon) and one polymethylmethacrylate-based resin (PMMA; Telio CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent), as well as bovine teeth (n = 10), were tested for their shear bond strength (SBS) and scored according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). In addition, CAD/CAM-manufactured lower incisor teeth were tested for their ultimate load (Fu). RESULTS: With regard to SBS, both PMMA (17.4 ± 2.2 MPa) and FRC (18.0 ± 2.4 MPa) disks showed no significant difference (p = 0.968) compared to bovine disks (18.0 ± 5.4 MPa). However, the samples differed with regard to their failure mode (PMMA: ARI 4, delamination failure; FRC: ARI 0 and bovine: ARI 1.6, both adhesive failure). With regard to Fu, FRC-based teeth could withstand significantly higher loads (708 ± 126 N) than PMMA-based teeth (345 ± 109 N) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Unlike PMMA-based teeth, teeth made from FRC showed sufficiently high fracture resistance and comparable SBS. Thus, FRC teeth could be a promising alternative for the production of dental in vitro models for orthodontic testing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAD/CAM-processed teeth made from FRC enable the use of standardized geometry and constant material properties. Using FRC teeth in dental in vitro studies has therefore the potential to identify differences between various treatment options with rather small sample sizes, while remaining close to the clinical situation.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether artificial CAD/CAM processed (computer-aided design/manufacturing) teeth could be a feasible option for the production of dental in vitro models for biomechanical testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks (n = 10 per group) made from two different CAD/CAM-materials, one fiber-reinforced composite (FRC; Trinia, Bicon) and one polymethylmethacrylate-based resin (PMMA; Telio CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent), as well as bovine teeth (n = 10), were tested for their shear bond strength (SBS) and scored according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). In addition, CAD/CAM-manufactured lower incisor teeth were tested for their ultimate load (Fu). RESULTS: With regard to SBS, both PMMA (17.4 ± 2.2 MPa) and FRC (18.0 ± 2.4 MPa) disks showed no significant difference (p = 0.968) compared to bovine disks (18.0 ± 5.4 MPa). However, the samples differed with regard to their failure mode (PMMA: ARI 4, delamination failure; FRC: ARI 0 and bovine: ARI 1.6, both adhesive failure). With regard to Fu, FRC-based teeth could withstand significantly higher loads (708 ± 126 N) than PMMA-based teeth (345 ± 109 N) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Unlike PMMA-based teeth, teeth made from FRC showed sufficiently high fracture resistance and comparable SBS. Thus, FRC teeth could be a promising alternative for the production of dental in vitro models for orthodontic testing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAD/CAM-processed teeth made from FRC enable the use of standardized geometry and constant material properties. Using FRC teeth in dental in vitro studies has therefore the potential to identify differences between various treatment options with rather small sample sizes, while remaining close to the clinical situation.
Authors: André F Reis; Marcelo Giannini; Alessandro Kavaguchi; Carlos José Soares; Sérgio R P Line Journal: J Adhes Dent Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Sonja Blöcher; Roland Frankenberger; Andreas Hellak; Michael Schauseil; Matthias J Roggendorf; Heike Maria Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Michael Schauseil; Sonja Blöcher; Andreas Hellak; Matthias J Roggendorf; Steffen Stein; Heike Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 2.151