Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2024
Flexural strength, fracture toughness, translucency, stain resistance, and water sorption of 3D-printed, milled, and conventional denture base materials.
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.
Lawson Nathaniel C, Safadi Yamen, Alford Aaron, Aggarwal Himanshi, Bora Pranit V, Lawson Thomas J, Givan Daniel A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare mechanical, optical, and physical properties of denture base materials fabricated with various 3D printing systems to reference milled and conventionally heat-processed denture base materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of denture base materials were either 3D-printed (DLP in-office printer, CLIP laboratory printer, or material jetting laboratory printer), milled, or heat processed. 3-point bend flexural strength testing was performed after 50 hours of water storage following 1hour of drying (dry testing) or in 37°C water (wet testing). Fracture toughness was performed with a notched beam specimen after 7 days of water storage and tested dry. The translucency parameter was measured with 2 mm thick specimens. Stain resistance was measured as color change following 14 days of storage in 37°C coffee. Water sorption was measured following 7 days of storage in 37°C distilled water.
RESULTS: For dry testing, all but one of the 3D-printed materials attained higher or equivalent flexural strength as the reference materials. For wet testing, all 3D-printed materials attained higher or equivalent strength as the reference materials and dry-tested materials. For 3D-printed materials, wet testing increased displacement before fracture whereas it decreased displacement for the reference materials. Only two of the 3D-printed materials had similar fracture toughness as the reference materials. One of the 3D-printed materials was more translucent and one was more opaque than the reference materials. Only one of the 3D-printed materials absorbed more water than the reference materials.
CONCLUSION: 3D-printed denture base materials have mostly equivalent mechanical, optical, and physical properties to conventional and milled denture base materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of denture base materials were either 3D-printed (DLP in-office printer, CLIP laboratory printer, or material jetting laboratory printer), milled, or heat processed. 3-point bend flexural strength testing was performed after 50 hours of water storage following 1hour of drying (dry testing) or in 37°C water (wet testing). Fracture toughness was performed with a notched beam specimen after 7 days of water storage and tested dry. The translucency parameter was measured with 2 mm thick specimens. Stain resistance was measured as color change following 14 days of storage in 37°C coffee. Water sorption was measured following 7 days of storage in 37°C distilled water.
RESULTS: For dry testing, all but one of the 3D-printed materials attained higher or equivalent flexural strength as the reference materials. For wet testing, all 3D-printed materials attained higher or equivalent strength as the reference materials and dry-tested materials. For 3D-printed materials, wet testing increased displacement before fracture whereas it decreased displacement for the reference materials. Only two of the 3D-printed materials had similar fracture toughness as the reference materials. One of the 3D-printed materials was more translucent and one was more opaque than the reference materials. Only one of the 3D-printed materials absorbed more water than the reference materials.
CONCLUSION: 3D-printed denture base materials have mostly equivalent mechanical, optical, and physical properties to conventional and milled denture base materials.