Gad Mohammed M, Alalawi Haidar, Akhtar Sultan, Al-Ghamdi Raghad, Alghamdi Rahaf, Al-Jefri Alaa, Al-Qarni Faisal D
Department of Substitutive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Biophysics, Institute for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.
Eur J Dent. 2023 Oct;17(4):1248-1256. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1759885. Epub 2023 Jan 20.
With advanced technology for complete denture fabrication, there is a lack of knowledge on the mechanical behavior of three-dimensional (3D) printed teeth despite the development of complete denture fabrication technologies. This study aimed to compare different types of 3D-printed teeth in terms of wear and fracture resistance in comparison to control prefabricated denture teeth.
One prefabricated tooth was selected and fixed in a resin holder and half of the tooth remained in anatomic form, while the other half was flattened for the wear test. One from each type was scanned and then printed with different resins; Asiga (DentaTOOTH, Asiga, Alexandria 2015,NSW, Australia), FormLabs (Denture Base LP, FormLabs, Berlin, Germany), and NextDent (NextDent C&B MFH, NextDent B.V., Soesterberg, the Netherlands) according to manufacturer recommendations. A total of 60 specimens (20/resin, = 10) were thermo cycled (5,000 cycles) and wear test samples were further subjected to cyclic loading (1,70,000 cycles) in a chewing simulator machine CS-4.2 (SD Mechatronik GmbH, Germany). The fracture strength of anatomic teeth was measured using a universal testing machine (Instron model 5965, Massachusetts, United States), while Geomagic Control X software was used to assess the amount of wear of flattened teeth. Statistical analyses were performed with one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's post hoc test at significance level of α = 0.05.
NextDent specimens showed the greatest volume loss, whereas FormLabs specimens showed the least volume loss. Comparing NextDent specimens to FromLabs specimens, FromLabs showed statistically significantly less volume loss ( < 0.001). No other group pairs differed significantly from one another in terms of volume loss ( > 0.06).
3D-printed denture teeth showed comparable strength and wear resistance with the prefabricated denture teeth and were suitable for long-term clinical usage except for NextDent that significantly showed the lowest fracture resistance.
尽管全口义齿制作技术有所发展，但在全口义齿制作的先进技术背景下，对于三维（3D）打印牙齿的力学性能仍缺乏了解。本研究旨在将不同类型的3D打印牙齿与对照预制义齿牙齿在磨损和抗断裂性方面进行比较。
选取一颗预制牙齿并固定在树脂托中，牙齿的一半保持解剖形态，另一半磨平用于磨损试验。对每种类型的一颗牙齿进行扫描，然后根据制造商的建议用不同的树脂打印；Asiga（DentaTOOTH，Asiga，澳大利亚新南威尔士州亚历山大2015）、FormLabs（义齿基托LP，FormLabs，德国柏林）和NextDent（NextDent C&B MFH，NextDent B.V.，荷兰索斯特贝赫）。总共60个样本（每种树脂20个，每组 = 10个）进行热循环（5000次循环），磨损试验样本在咀嚼模拟器CS - 4.2（德国SD Mechatronik GmbH）中进一步进行循环加载（170000次循环）。使用万能试验机（美国马萨诸塞州Instron型号5965）测量解剖形态牙齿的断裂强度，而使用Geomagic Control X软件评估磨平牙齿的磨损量。采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行统计分析，显著性水平α = 0.05。
NextDent样本的体积损失最大，而FormLabs样本的体积损失最小。将NextDent样本与FormLabs样本比较，FormLabs的体积损失在统计学上显著更小（< 0.001）。在体积损失方面，没有其他组对之间存在显著差异（> 0.06）。
3D打印义齿牙齿与预制义齿牙齿相比，显示出相当的强度和耐磨性，除了NextDent明显显示出最低的抗断裂性外，适合长期临床使用。
