Suppr超能文献

传统与CAD/CAM临时修复体的机械性能和表面性能比较

Comparison of Mechanical and Surface Properties between Conventional and CAD/CAM Provisional Restorations.

作者信息

Wechkunanukul Napatsorn, Klomjit Kornuma, Kumtun Thawanrat, Jaikumpun Pongsiri, Kengtanyakich Santiphab, Katheng Awutsadaporn

机构信息

Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand.

出版信息

Eur J Dent. 2025 Jul;19(3):697-703. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1791965. Epub 2024 Dec 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the flexural strength, surface hardness, and surface roughness of conventional, milled, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed provisional restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bar-shaped polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) and disc-shaped specimens (9 × 2 mm) were fabricated using three different techniques ( = 10/group): conventional (SR Ivocron C&B, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), milling (Aidite Temp PMMA Blocks, Aidite, Qinhuangdao, China), and 3D printing (Asiga DentaTOOTH, Asiga, Sydney, Australia). Flexural strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Vickers hardness and surface roughness tests were performed on the disc-shaped specimens using a micro-Vickers hardness tester and atomic force microscopy, respectively.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference was conducted to compare the differences value between groups ( < 0.05).

RESULTS

The milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) provisional restorative material exhibited a significantly higher flexural strength (125.16 ± 6.83 MPa) compared with both the traditional (109.74 ± 14.14 MPa) and 3D-printed (71.09 ± 9.09 MPa) materials ( < 0.05). The conventional material had a higher Vickers hardness (19.27 ± 0.41 kgf/mm) compared with the milled (18.53 ± 0.32 kgf/mm) and 3D-printed (17.80 ± 1.85 kgf/mm) materials, though the difference was statistically significant only between the conventional and 3D-printed groups. The surface roughness of the milled CAD/CAM material (8.80 ± 2.70 nm) was significantly lower than that of the 3D-printed material (24.27 ± 9.82 nm) ( < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The provisional restorations fabricated using milled PMMA technology provide adequate flexural strength, surface hardness, and low surface roughness, offering a viable alternative for creating provisional restorations.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了传统、铣削和三维(3D)打印临时修复体的抗弯强度、表面硬度和表面粗糙度。

材料与方法

采用三种不同技术制作条形聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)试件(25×2×2mm)和盘形试件(9×2mm)(每组n = 10):传统方法(SR Ivocron C&B,义获嘉伟瓦登特公司,沙恩,列支敦士登)、铣削(爱迪特临时PMMA块,爱迪特公司,中国秦皇岛)和3D打印(Asiga DentaTOOTH,Asiga公司,悉尼,澳大利亚)。使用万能试验机评估抗弯强度直至发生断裂。分别使用显微维氏硬度计和原子力显微镜对盘形试件进行维氏硬度和表面粗糙度测试。

统计分析

数据采用单因素方差分析进行统计学分析。采用事后检验的Tukey真实显著差异法比较组间差异值(P < 0.05)。

结果

与传统材料(109.74±14.14MPa)和3D打印材料(71.09±9.09MPa)相比,铣削的计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)临时修复材料表现出显著更高的抗弯强度(125.16±6.83MPa)(P < 0.05)。传统材料的维氏硬度(19.27±0.41kgf/mm²)高于铣削材料(18.53±0.32kgf/mm²)和3D打印材料(17.80±1.85kgf/mm²),不过仅传统组和3D打印组之间的差异具有统计学意义。铣削CAD/CAM材料的表面粗糙度(8.80±2.70nm)显著低于3D打印材料(24.27±9.82nm)(P < 0.05)。

结论

采用铣削PMMA技术制作的临时修复体具有足够的抗弯强度、表面硬度和低表面粗糙度,为制作临时修复体提供了一种可行的替代方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4ba6/12182396/e6972300760b/10-1055-s-0044-1791965-i2453598-1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验