Güntekin Neslihan, Tunçdemir Ali Rıza
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Heliyon. 2024 Feb 12;10(4):e26269. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26269. eCollection 2024 Feb 29.
Permanent crown materials produced with new generation additive manufacturing and traditional subtractive manufacturing materials have not been compared in terms of wear resistance.
This study aims to compare the volumetric loss related to wear and resulting surface roughness after aging in a chewing simulator between resin nano ceramics produced with milling technique and permanent crown materials produced with three dimensional (3D) printing.
Three different hybrid composite-ceramic (HCC) (The three materials are GC: Cerasmart, VE: Vita Enamic, and GV: Grandio Voco.) and one 3D printed definitive crown resin (FormLabs Permanent Crown Resin) were investigated before aging (n:8), the surface roughness of all samples was measured with a profilometer, and 1 randomly selected sample from each subgroup was imaged with scanning electron microscope (SEM). 3D scans of each sample were obtained with a desktop scanner. Thermomechanical aging was performed using a chewing simulator. Four hundred thousand cycles were completed under a vertical occlusal force of 49 ± 0.7 N with a thermal cycle of 1.7 Hz 5-55° and with a dwell time of 120 s, mimicking 2 years of aging. The imaging procedures were repeated, and the change in surface roughness was evaluated. 3D images were also overlapped, and the volumetric loss was calculated with the relevant inspector software. The data obtained were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
The results showed significant statistical differences for both parameters (p > 0.05). The highest volumetric loss was found in the GV group while the lowest volumetric loss was in the VE group. The highest surface roughness values were observed in the GV group, while the lowest values belonged to the VE one.
Of the restorative materials evaluated, the VE group is suitable for long-term restorations, whereas the GV one is suitable for medium-term restorations. It is promising in terms of 3D printing technologies that the 3D material gives comparable results with the GV group.
CLINICAL İMPLICATION: Additive manufacturing techniques are a successful method that accelerates the manufacturing process. Permanent crown resins are promising alternatives to conventional production.
新一代增材制造生产的永久冠材料与传统减材制造材料在耐磨性方面尚未进行比较。
本研究旨在比较在咀嚼模拟器中老化后，采用铣削技术生产的树脂纳米陶瓷与采用三维（3D）打印生产的永久冠材料的磨损相关体积损失和表面粗糙度。
研究了三种不同的混合复合陶瓷（HCC）（三种材料分别为GC：Cerasmart、VE：Vita Enamic和GV：Grandio Voco）和一种3D打印的最终冠树脂（FormLabs永久冠树脂）在老化前（n = 8）的情况，用轮廓仪测量所有样品的表面粗糙度，从每个亚组中随机选取1个样品用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）成像。用台式扫描仪对每个样品进行3D扫描。使用咀嚼模拟器进行热机械老化。在49 ± 0.7 N的垂直咬合力下，以1.7 Hz的热循环频率在5 - 55°下完成400000次循环，保压时间为120 s，模拟2年的老化。重复成像程序，评估表面粗糙度的变化。3D图像也进行重叠，并用相关检测软件计算体积损失。对获得的数据进行双向方差分析（p < 0.05）。
结果显示两个参数均有显著统计学差异（p > 0.05）。GV组的体积损失最高，而VE组的体积损失最低。GV组的表面粗糙度值最高，而最低值属于VE组。
在所评估的修复材料中，VE组适用于长期修复，而GV组适用于中期修复。3D材料与GV组结果相当，这在3D打印技术方面很有前景。
增材制造技术是加速制造过程的成功方法。永久冠树脂是传统生产的有前景的替代品。
