IADR Abstract Archives

Fracture Toughness and Impact Strength of 3D-Printed Splints

Objectives: To compare fracture toughness and impact strength of 3D-printed splint materials to milled and heat cured materials.
Methods: Bars (4mm×8mm×39mm for toughness and 50mm×6mm×2mm for impact) of 3D-printed splint resins, KeySplint Soft and Hard (KSS and KSH, Keystone) and Nightguard Flex and Firm (NFX and NFM, SprintRay) were printed using a DLP 3D Printer (Pro 95, SprintRay), and post-processed. Milled specimens (MILL, ProArt CAD, Ivoclar) were fabricated in a milling unit and heat-cured specimens (HC, Excel Formula, St. George Technology) were produced using a wax pattern and heat-curing technique. Specimens were polished to 600grit SiC paper. Fracture toughness bars had a 3mm cut placed in their center with a saw blade and a 100-400µm notch with a razor blade. Impact specimens had a 1.2mm notch in their center with a 45degree router bit. Specimens (n=14/group) were stored for 48hrs at 37C in water (wet) and half were removed from water for (dry) storage. For fracture toughness, specimens were placed with their pre-crack downwards and loaded to failure at 1mm/min in a universal testing machine. For impact strength, specimens were tested with an Izod impact machine (Model Impact 104, Tinius Olsen) with the notch facing towards the pendulum hammer. A 7.5J pendulum hammer was released from an angle of 150 and the energy absorbed was recorded. Data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (alpha=.05).
Results: Data for fracture toughness and impact strength are presented in the Table. 2-way ANOVA determined that there were significant differences between materials and testing condition (wet/dry) and their interaction for fracture toughness and impact strength (p<0.001). Tukey post-hoc analyses found significant differences between groups as indicated by different letters in the same column in the Table.
Conclusions: Soft/flexible 3D-printed splint materials have greater fracture toughness and impact strength than hard/firm materials.
Division:
Meeting: 2025 AADOCR/CADR Annual Meeting (New York City, New York)
Location: New York City, New York
Year: 2025
Final Presentation ID: 1356
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 2: Polymer-based Materials
Authors
  • Lawson, Nathaniel  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Rojas Rueda, Silvia Marcela  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Hammamy, Mohammed  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Nejat, Amir Hossein  ( LSU School of Dentistry , New Orleans , Louisiana , United States )
  • Ning, Haibin  ( UAB , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Hamdan, Suleiman  ( LSU School of Dentistry , New Orleans , Louisiana , United States )
  • Kee, Edwin  ( LSU School of Dentistry , New Orleans , Louisiana , United States )
  • Pio, Antonio  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Financial Interest Disclosure: Dr. Lawson has had research grants and speaking honorarium from Ivoclar
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Polymer-based Materials-Materials Properties III
    Saturday, 03/15/2025 , 11:00AM - 12:15PM
    TABLES
    Table 1
     Wet fracture toughness (Kic)Dry fracture toughness (Kic)Wet impact strength (kJ/m2)Dry impact strength (kJ/m2)
    KSS1.52 +/-0.18 B b1.88 +/-0.06 A a1.4514 +/-.23 A a 0.22 +/-0.01 A b
    KSH0.68 +/-0.09 D0.72 +/-0.04 D0.08 +/-0.01 B0.07 +/-0.01 B
    NFX0.91 +/-0.07 CD b1.09 +/-0.05 C a2.29 +/-0.18 A a0.22 +/-0.01 A b
    NFM0.87 +/-0.09 C a0.71 +/-0.11 D b0.08 +/-0.01 B a0.07 +/-0.00 B b
    MILL2.01 +/-0.08 A a1.54 +/-0.08 B b0.230 +/-0.01 B0.24 +/-0.02 A
    HC1.91 +/-0.19 A a1.60 +/-0.11 B b0.09 +/-0.01 B a0.07 +/-0.01 B b
    Materials with different lower case letters in rows (wet vs dry) or different uppercase letters in columns are statistically different