School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Department of Periodontology and Implantology, School of Dentistry, Universidade de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Dent Traumatol. 2024 Jun;40(3):281-288. doi: 10.1111/edt.12912. Epub 2023 Nov 23.
BACKGROUND/AIM: The interaction between the ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) with distinct materials utilized for obtaining dental models can affect the performance of resulting mouthguards. This study attempted to evaluate the effect of different materials for conventional (dental stone) or 3D-printed (resin) models on EVA's physical and mechanical properties and surface characteristics.
EVA sheets (Bioart) were laminated over four model types: GIV, conventional Type IV dental stone model (Zhermak); ReG, resin-reinforced Type IV dental stone model (Zero Stone); 3DnT, 3D resin printed model (Anycubic) without surface treatment; 3DT, 3D-printed model (Anycubic) with water-soluble gel (KY Jelly Lubricant, Johnson & Johnson) coating during post-curing process. The EVA specimens were cut following the ISO 37-II standard (n = 30). Shore A hardness was measured before and after plasticization on the contact (internal) or opposite (external) surfaces with the model. The breaking force (F, N), elongation (EL, mm), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS, MPa) were measured using a universal testing machine. Macro-photography and scanning electron microscopy were adopted for classifying the EVA surface alteration. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by Tukey's test (α = .05).
Plasticization significantly decreased Shore A values for the tested EVA regardless of the model type (p < .001). Higher F, El, and UTS values were verified for the EVA with 3DT and GIV models compared to ReG and 3DnT (p < .001). 3DnT models resulted in severe surface alteration and a greater reduction of the mechanical properties of the EVA.
The interaction of EVA with 3D resin-printed models without surface treatment or resin-reinforced Type IV dental stone models significantly affected the physical and mechanical properties of this material. The utilization of water-soluble gel coating during the post-curing process of 3D resin printed models improved the mechanical properties of the EVA, similarly when this material was plasticized over conventional Type IV dental stone model.
背景/目的:乙烯-醋酸乙烯酯(EVA)与用于获得牙模的不同材料之间的相互作用会影响最终护齿板的性能。本研究试图评估不同材料(常规牙科用石或 3D 打印树脂)对 EVA 物理和机械性能以及表面特性的影响。
EVA 薄片(Bioart)覆盖在四种模型类型上:GIV,常规 IV 型牙科用石模型(Zhermak);ReG,树脂增强型 IV 型牙科用石模型(Zero Stone);3DnT,未经过表面处理的 3D 打印树脂模型(Anycubic);3DT,3D 打印模型(Anycubic),在后固化过程中使用水溶性凝胶(KY Jelly Lubricant,Johnson & Johnson)涂层。EVA 样品按照 ISO 37-II 标准(n=30)切割。在与模型接触(内部)或相对(外部)表面进行增塑后,测量 Shore A 硬度。使用万能试验机测量断裂力(F,N)、伸长率(EL,mm)和极限拉伸强度(UTS,MPa)。采用宏观摄影和扫描电子显微镜对 EVA 表面变化进行分类。采用重复测量的单因素方差分析,然后进行 Tukey 检验(α=0.05)。
无论模型类型如何,增塑都会显著降低测试 EVA 的 Shore A 值(p<0.001)。与 ReG 和 3DnT 相比,EVA 与 3DT 和 GIV 模型结合时,F、El 和 UTS 值更高(p<0.001)。3DnT 模型导致 EVA 表面严重恶化,并显著降低其机械性能。
EVA 与未经表面处理的 3D 树脂打印模型或树脂增强型 IV 型牙科用石模型的相互作用显著影响了该材料的物理和机械性能。在 3D 树脂打印模型的后固化过程中使用水溶性凝胶涂层可提高 EVA 的机械性能,而当该材料在常规 IV 型牙科用石模型上增塑时也可达到相同效果。