Doctoral student, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Postgraduate student, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jun;121(6):955-959. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.022. Epub 2019 Jan 31.
With the emergence of digital technologies, new materials have become available for occlusal devices. However, data are scarce about these different materials and technologies and their mechanical properties.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the flexural strength and surface hardness of different materials using different technologies for occlusal device fabrication, with an emphasis on the digital technologies of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and 3D printing.
A total of 140 rectangular specimens were fabricated from two 3D-printed (VarseoWax Splint and Ortho Rigid), 2 CAD-CAM-produced (Ceramill Splintec and CopraDur), and 3 conventional autopolymerizing occlusal device materials (ProBase Cold, Resilit S, and Orthocryl) according to ISO 20795-1:2013. Flexural strength and surface hardness were determined for 10 specimens of each tested material using the 3-point bend test and the Brinell method. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and 1-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections (α=.05).
Surface hardness values ranged from 28.5 ±2.5 MPa to 116.2 ±1.6 MPa. During flexural testing, neither the CopraDur nor the VarseoWax Splint specimens fractured during loading within the end limits of the penetrant's possible movement. Flexural strength values for other groups ranged from 75.0 ±12.0 MPa to 104.9 ±6.2 MPa. Statistical analysis determined significant differences among the tested materials for flexural strength and surface hardness.
Mechanical properties among different occlusal device materials were significantly different. Acrylic resins were less flexible than polyamide and nonacrylic occlusal device materials for 3D printing but had higher and more consistent values of surface hardness. Clinicians should consider the different mechanical properties of the available materials when choosing occlusal device materials.
随着数字技术的出现,出现了用于咬合装置的新材料。然而,关于这些不同材料和技术及其机械性能的数据很少。
本体外研究的目的是研究使用不同技术制造咬合装置的不同材料的弯曲强度和表面硬度,重点是计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造 (CAD-CAM) 和 3D 打印的数字技术。
根据 ISO 20795-1:2013,共从两种 3D 打印(VarseoWax Splint 和 Ortho Rigid)、2 种 CAD-CAM 生产(Ceramill Splintec 和 CopraDur)和 3 种传统自聚合咬合装置材料(ProBase Cold、Resilit S 和 Orthocryl)中制备了 140 个矩形试件。使用三点弯曲试验和布氏硬度法对每种测试材料的 10 个试件的弯曲强度和表面硬度进行了测定。使用描述性统计和 1 方差分析(Bonferroni 校正,α=.05)对数据进行了分析。
表面硬度值范围为 28.5±2.5 MPa 至 116.2±1.6 MPa。在弯曲试验过程中,CopraDur 和 VarseoWax Splint 试件在加载期间都没有在渗透剂可能移动的末端极限内破裂。其他组的弯曲强度值范围为 75.0±12.0 MPa 至 104.9±6.2 MPa。统计分析确定了测试材料的弯曲强度和表面硬度之间存在显著差异。
不同咬合装置材料的机械性能有显著差异。与聚酰胺和非丙烯酸类咬合装置材料相比,丙烯酸树脂在 3D 打印时的柔韧性较低,但表面硬度值更高且更一致。临床医生在选择咬合装置材料时应考虑可用材料的不同机械性能。