The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Assessing mechanical properties and biosafety of dental zirconia for 3D printing and CNC milling.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Zhen, Han Kang, Li XiaoJing, Wei ZhongXiang, Wang XiongYu, Han YaXin, Tan JunXia, Liu Xin
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The mechanical properties and biocompatibility of 3-dimensionally (3D) printed dental ceramics require further investigation to provide a theoretical basis for clinical application.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of zirconia fabricated by 3D printing and conventional computer numerical control (CNC) milling.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens were fabricated by 3D printing and CNC milling. The crystalline phase (CP) and surface roughness (SR) were assessed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (n=5). Flexural strength (FS), fracture toughness (FT), and Vickers hardness (HV) were examined with a universal testing machine and Vickers microhardness tester (n=5). Cell viability was assessed by using the CCK-8 assay and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), with 5 replicate wells per group. The mechanical property tests and CCK-8 assay were independently repeated 3 times. In vivo biocompatibility was assessed by acute oral toxicity testing in Sprague-Dawley rats (n=5) and mucosal irritation evaluation in golden hamsters (n=10). Data are presented as mean ±standard deviation (t test or 1-way analysis of variance) or median (nonparametric tests) (α=.05).
RESULTS: Three-dimensionally printed zirconia possessed a rougher surface with a microporous structure compared with CNC milled zirconia. Both ceramics were primarily in the tetragonal phase, with the 3D printing zirconia exhibiting broader and lower-intensity peaks. The CNC milled zirconia demonstrated significantly higher FS than the 3D printed zirconia (P<.001). The 3D printed ceramics showed better mechanical properties in FT (P=.029) and Vickers hardness (P=.002). No statistically significant differences in cell viability were observed among groups at 3 time points (P>.05). No meaningful systemic toxicity or mucosal irritation was observed in short-term animal models.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensionally printed zirconia ceramics exhibit better toughness, hardness, and short-time biosafety. The flexural strength preliminarily meets the clinical requirements for low-stress restorations, providing a theoretical foundation for the future clinical application of 3D printed zirconia restorations. Further research and optimization of manufacturing processes are needed to meet the demands of high stress and long-term clinical application.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of zirconia fabricated by 3D printing and conventional computer numerical control (CNC) milling.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Zirconia specimens were fabricated by 3D printing and CNC milling. The crystalline phase (CP) and surface roughness (SR) were assessed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (n=5). Flexural strength (FS), fracture toughness (FT), and Vickers hardness (HV) were examined with a universal testing machine and Vickers microhardness tester (n=5). Cell viability was assessed by using the CCK-8 assay and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs), with 5 replicate wells per group. The mechanical property tests and CCK-8 assay were independently repeated 3 times. In vivo biocompatibility was assessed by acute oral toxicity testing in Sprague-Dawley rats (n=5) and mucosal irritation evaluation in golden hamsters (n=10). Data are presented as mean ±standard deviation (t test or 1-way analysis of variance) or median (nonparametric tests) (α=.05).
RESULTS: Three-dimensionally printed zirconia possessed a rougher surface with a microporous structure compared with CNC milled zirconia. Both ceramics were primarily in the tetragonal phase, with the 3D printing zirconia exhibiting broader and lower-intensity peaks. The CNC milled zirconia demonstrated significantly higher FS than the 3D printed zirconia (P<.001). The 3D printed ceramics showed better mechanical properties in FT (P=.029) and Vickers hardness (P=.002). No statistically significant differences in cell viability were observed among groups at 3 time points (P>.05). No meaningful systemic toxicity or mucosal irritation was observed in short-term animal models.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensionally printed zirconia ceramics exhibit better toughness, hardness, and short-time biosafety. The flexural strength preliminarily meets the clinical requirements for low-stress restorations, providing a theoretical foundation for the future clinical application of 3D printed zirconia restorations. Further research and optimization of manufacturing processes are needed to meet the demands of high stress and long-term clinical application.