Division of Biomaterials, UAB School of Dentistry, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Department of Chemistry, UAB College of Arts and Sciences, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024 Jan;36(1):220-230. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13174. Epub 2023 Nov 26.
To compare the filler weight percentage (wt%), filler and resin composition, flexural strength, modulus, and hardness of several 3D-printed resins to direct and indirect restorative materials.
Four 3D-printed resins (C&B MFH, Ceramic Crown, OnX, and OnX Tough), one milled resin composite (Lava Ultimate), one conventional composite (Filtek Supreme), and one ceramic (IPS e.max CAD) were evaluated. Filler wt% was determined by the burned ash technique, and filler particle morphology and composition were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy, respectively. Organic resin composition was analyzed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Three-point bend flexural strength and modulus of the materials were determined by ISO 4049 or ISO 6872. Vickers microhardness was measured. Data were compared with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc analysis. Linear regression analysis was performed for filler wt% versus flexural strength, modulus, and hardness.
3D-printed resins were composed of various sized and shaped silica fillers and various types of methacrylate resins. Significant differences were found among filler wt% with some materials around 3% (C&B MFH), others between 33% and 38% (OnX Tough and OnX), others around 50% (Ceramic Crown), and some around 72% (Filtek Supreme and Lava Ultimate). All 3D-printed resins had significantly lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than the conventional and milled resin composites and ceramic material (p < 0.001). Filler wt% demonstrated a linear relationship with modulus (p = 0.013, R = 0.821) and hardness (p = 0.018, R = 0.787) but not flexural strength (p = 0.056, R = 0.551).
3D-printed resins contain from 3% to 50% filler content. Filler wt% alone does not affect flexural strength, but strength may be affected by resin composition as well. Although the 3D-printed resins had lower flexural strength, modulus, and hardness than milled and conventional composite and ceramic, they demonstrated nonbrittle plastic behavior.
The properties of 3D-printed resins vary based on their composition, which affects their clinical applications.
比较几种 3D 打印树脂与直接和间接修复材料的填充重量百分比（wt%）、填料和树脂成分、弯曲强度、模量和硬度。
评估了四种 3D 打印树脂（C&B MFH、Ceramic Crown、OnX 和 OnX Tough）、一种铣削树脂复合材料（Lava Ultimate）、一种传统复合材料（Filtek Supreme）和一种陶瓷材料（IPS e.max CAD）。通过灼烧灰分技术确定填充 wt%，通过扫描电子显微镜和能量色散光谱分析分别分析填料颗粒形态和成分，通过傅里叶变换红外光谱分析有机树脂成分。通过 ISO 4049 或 ISO 6872 测定材料的三点弯曲强度和模量。测量维氏显微硬度。采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）和 Tukey 事后分析比较数据。进行线性回归分析，研究填充 wt%与弯曲强度、模量和硬度之间的关系。
3D 打印树脂由各种尺寸和形状的二氧化硅填料和各种类型的甲基丙烯酸酯树脂组成。一些材料的填充 wt%约为 3%（C&B MFH），另一些在 33%和 38%之间（OnX Tough 和 OnX），还有一些约为 50%（Ceramic Crown），而另一些约为 72%（Filtek Supreme 和 Lava Ultimate）。与传统和铣削树脂复合材料和陶瓷材料相比，所有 3D 打印树脂的弯曲强度、模量和硬度均显著较低（p<0.001）。填充 wt%与模量呈线性关系（p=0.013，R2=0.821）和硬度（p=0.018，R2=0.787），但与弯曲强度无关（p=0.056，R2=0.551）。
3D 打印树脂的填充含量为 3%至 50%。填充 wt%单独不会影响弯曲强度，但强度可能也受树脂成分的影响。尽管 3D 打印树脂的弯曲强度、模量和硬度低于铣削和传统复合材料以及陶瓷，但它们表现出非脆性塑料行为。
3D 打印树脂的性能因其组成而异，这影响其临床应用。
