IADR Abstract Archives
Flexural Strength of 3D Printed Crown and Bridge Provisional Materials
Objectives: To compare the strength of 6 3D-printed crown and bridge provisional materials to conventional and milled provisional materials.
Methods: CAD software (TinkerCAD, Google) was used to design 3-point bend flexural strength specimens 2.5x2.5x25mm, n=10/material). Six 3D-printed provisional crown materials were examined in this study: Optiprint (Dentona), Dentca teeth (Dentca), Crowntech (Saremco), Crown and Bridge (3D materials), MFH resin (NexDent), and Denta Tooth (Asiga). The specimens were printed in printers recommended by manufacturer (see table), cleaned 2x 15min in a 95% isopropyl alcohol ultrasonic bath and post cured (PROCURE, Sprintray; 29min 60C). A milled provisional material (Temp-Esthetic, Harvest Dental) was milled in a XTWet 5-axis mill (Digital Dental). Two bis-acryl conventional provisional materials (Tempsmart, GC and Luxatemp, DMG) and a power-liquid PEMA provisional material (Alike, GC) were mixed, placed into a silicone mold, and allowed to self-cure at 37C for manufacturers recommended time. Any excess material was removed with 600 grit SiC paper. After 7-day storage in distilled water, the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine on 20mm separated supports and loaded to failure at 1mm/min. The maximum failure load was used to calculate the flexural strength. Data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis.
Results: Significant differences were found between materials (p<.05) and statistical differences as determined by Tukey post-hoc analysis are indicated by different letters in the attached table
Conclusions: Most 3D printed provisional materials achieved significantly greater flexural strength than the PEMA power-liquid material and many achieved statistically similar strength as a reference milled provisional material. One of the bis-acryl materials (Luxatemp) produced the highest flexural strength.
Methods: CAD software (TinkerCAD, Google) was used to design 3-point bend flexural strength specimens 2.5x2.5x25mm, n=10/material). Six 3D-printed provisional crown materials were examined in this study: Optiprint (Dentona), Dentca teeth (Dentca), Crowntech (Saremco), Crown and Bridge (3D materials), MFH resin (NexDent), and Denta Tooth (Asiga). The specimens were printed in printers recommended by manufacturer (see table), cleaned 2x 15min in a 95% isopropyl alcohol ultrasonic bath and post cured (PROCURE, Sprintray; 29min 60C). A milled provisional material (Temp-Esthetic, Harvest Dental) was milled in a XTWet 5-axis mill (Digital Dental). Two bis-acryl conventional provisional materials (Tempsmart, GC and Luxatemp, DMG) and a power-liquid PEMA provisional material (Alike, GC) were mixed, placed into a silicone mold, and allowed to self-cure at 37C for manufacturers recommended time. Any excess material was removed with 600 grit SiC paper. After 7-day storage in distilled water, the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine on 20mm separated supports and loaded to failure at 1mm/min. The maximum failure load was used to calculate the flexural strength. Data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis.
Results: Significant differences were found between materials (p<.05) and statistical differences as determined by Tukey post-hoc analysis are indicated by different letters in the attached table
Conclusions: Most 3D printed provisional materials achieved significantly greater flexural strength than the PEMA power-liquid material and many achieved statistically similar strength as a reference milled provisional material. One of the bis-acryl materials (Luxatemp) produced the highest flexural strength.