Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material
Do you wish to request the book?
Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material
2021
Overview
Objectives
To investigate the impact of different cleaning methods on the fracture load and two-body wear of additively manufactured three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) for long-term temporary use, compared to the respective outcomes of milled provisional PMMA FDPs.
Materials and methods
Shape congruent three-unit FDPs were 3D printed using three different resin-based materials [FPT, GCT, NMF] or milled [TEL] (
N
= 48,
n
= 16 per group). After printing, the FDPs were cleaned using: Isopropanol (ISO), Yellow Magic 7 (YEL), or centrifugal force (CEN). Chewing simulation was carried out with a vertical load of 50 N (480,000 × 5 °C/55 °C). Two-body wear and fracture load were measured. Data were analyzed using global univariate ANOVA with partial eta squared, Kruskal-Wallis
H
, Mann-Whitney
U
, and Spearman’s rho test (
p
< 0.05).
Results
TEL showed less wear resistance than FPT (
p
= 0.001) for all cleaning methods tested. Concerning vertical material loss, NMF and GCT were in the same range of value (
p
= 0.419–0.997), except within FDPs cleaned in ISO (
p
= 0.021). FPT showed no impact of cleaning method on wear resistance (
p
= 0.219–0.692). TEL (
p
< 0.001) showed the highest and FPT (
p
< 0.001) the lowest fracture load. Regarding the cleaning methods, specimens treated with ISO showed lower fracture load than specimens cleaned with CEN (
p
= 0.044) or YEL (
p
= 0.036).
Conclusions
The material selection and the cleaning method can have an impact on two-body wear and fracture load results.
Clinical relevance
Printed restorations showed superior two-body wear resistance compared to milled FDPs but lower fracture load values. Regarding cleaning methods, ISO showed a negative effect on fracture load compared to the other methods tested.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
