Al-Fodeh Rami S, Al-Dwairi Ziad N, Almasri Mahmoud, Baba Nadim Z
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Dean, Faculty of Dentistry, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Aug 29. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13939.
The purpose of this study was to compare the wear, fracture strength, and mode of failure of various brands of 3D-printed resin denture teeth with prefabricated acrylic resin. Additionally, the study aimed to analyze the different modes of failure exhibited by these teeth.
The study utilized 90 3D-printed and 30 prefabricated, 3D-printed resin teeth from three brands: L = Optiprint Lumina, A = ASIGA DentaTooth, P = Power resins, along with prefabricated acrylic teeth from M = Major Super Lux. Each of the 30 samples per main group was divided into two subgroups: The first subgroup samples (M1, A1, L1, P1) were subjected to thermal cycling and mechanical loading; M2, A2, L2, and P2 were not aged and tested directly. A scan of a prefabricated acrylic tooth was taken using an intraoral scanner, and then the STL file was printed using an Asiga 3Dprinter. The specimens underwent aging to simulate 5 years of clinical use with 10,000 thermal cycles and 1,200,000 dynamic load cycles on a chewing simulator. Surface roughness parameters (Rz, Ra, Rq) were measured using a 3D Optical Profilometer, fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine, and SEM analysis was performed to observe failure modes. Statistical analysis using T-test, one-way analysis, and two-way analysis processed by the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 (SPSS: Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was done with a level of significance set at <0.05.
The results showed that the difference in surface roughness parameters (Rz, Ra, Rq) before and after aging for Group M, Group A, Group L, and Group P was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Two-way ANOVA for wear resistance between aging and groups on dependent variable Rz (p = 0.002), Ra (p = 0.001), Rq (p = 0.001) were significant. Multiple comparisons for surface roughness parameters showed Group A and Group L were lower than Group P and Group M (p < 0.05). For fracture strength, One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference between groups for fracture strength either without or after the aging procedure (p < 0.05). Multiple comparisons for fracture strength without aging showed no significant difference between Group M, Group A, and Group L (p > 0.05). After the aging procedure fracture strength for Group M was higher than Group A, Group L, and Group P (p < 0.05).
3D-printed resin teeth showed a greater and comparable wear resistance to prefabricated acrylic teeth. Fracture strength was comparable between prefabricated acrylic teeth and 3D-printed resin (Asiga and Lumina) before aging, but after aging 3D-printed resin teeth showed less fracture strength.
本研究旨在比较不同品牌的3D打印树脂义齿牙与预制丙烯酸树脂义齿牙的磨损情况、断裂强度及失效模式。此外，该研究还旨在分析这些牙齿所呈现的不同失效模式。
本研究使用了90颗3D打印的以及30颗预制的3D打印树脂牙，来自三个品牌：L = Optiprint Lumina，A = ASIGA DentaTooth，P = Power resins，以及来自M = Major Super Lux的预制丙烯酸树脂牙。每个主要组别的30个样本均分为两个亚组：第一个亚组样本（M1、A1、L1、P1）进行热循环和机械加载；M2、A2、L2和P2未进行老化处理，直接进行测试。使用口腔内扫描仪对一颗预制丙烯酸树脂牙进行扫描，然后使用Asiga 3D打印机打印STL文件。通过在咀嚼模拟器上进行10000次热循环和1200000次动态加载循环，对样本进行老化处理，以模拟5年的临床使用情况。使用3D光学轮廓仪测量表面粗糙度参数（Rz、Ra、Rq），使用万能试验机评估抗断裂性，并进行扫描电子显微镜（SEM）分析以观察失效模式。使用社会科学统计软件包（SPSS）23.0版（SPSS：美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥市SPSS公司）进行T检验、单向分析和双向分析的统计分析，显著性水平设定为<0.05。
结果表明，M组、A组、L组和P组老化前后的表面粗糙度参数（Rz、Ra、Rq）差异具有统计学意义（p < 0.05）。关于因变量Rz（p = 0.002）、Ra（p = 0.001）、Rq（p = 0.001），老化与组间耐磨性的双向方差分析具有显著性。表面粗糙度参数的多重比较显示，A组和L组低于P组和M组（p < 0.05）。对于断裂强度，单向方差分析表明，老化前或老化后，各组之间的断裂强度存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。未老化时断裂强度的多重比较显示，M组、A组和L组之间无显著差异（p > 0.05）。老化处理后，M组的断裂强度高于A组、L组和P组（p < 0.05）。
3D打印树脂牙显示出比预制丙烯酸树脂牙更高且相当的耐磨性。预制丙烯酸树脂牙与3D打印树脂（Asiga和Lumina）在老化前的断裂强度相当，但老化后3D打印树脂牙的断裂强度较低。
