Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Influence of Pre-Treatment and Artificial Aging on the Retention of 3D-Printed Permanent Composite Crowns
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 Pre-Treatment and Artificial Aging on the Retention of 3D-Printed Permanent Composite Crowns
Do you wish to request the book?
Influence of Pre-Treatment and Artificial Aging on the Retention of 3D-Printed Permanent Composite Crowns
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 Pre-Treatment and Artificial Aging on the Retention of 3D-Printed Permanent Composite Crowns
2022
Overview
The aim of this in vitro study is to investigate the bonding properties of a 3D-printable permanent composite material in comparison to milled composite materials. The tested materials are 3D-printed BEGO VarseoSmile Crown plus (VA1_ab, VA1_nt, VA2_ab, VA2_nt), Vita Enamic (EN1, EN2), and 3M Lava Ultimate (UL1, UL2) (N = 64; n = 8). For this purpose, all crowns are luted to polymer tooth stumps #46 (FDI) using dual-curing luting composite, strictly according to the manufacturer’s instructions. VA1_ab and VA2_ab are additionally airborne-particle abraded. 4 groups (VA2_ab, VA2_nt, EN2, UL2) are artificially aged (1,200,000 cycles, 50 N, 10,000 thermocycles), whereby no specimen has failed. All 64 specimens undergo pull-off testing until retention loss. The mean forces of retention-loss is 786.6 ± 137.6 N (VA1_nt, *), 988.6 ± 212.1 N (VA2_nt, *, Ɨ), 1223.8 ± 119.2 N (VA1_ab, Ɨ, ǂ), 1051.9 ± 107.2 N (VA2_ab, *, Ɨ), 1185.9 ± 211.8 N (EN1, Ɨ, ǂ), 1485.0 ± 198.2 N EN2, ǂ), 1533.8 ± 42.4 N (UL1, ǂ), and 1521.8 ± 343.4 N (UL2, ǂ) (one-way ANOVA (Scheffé method); p < 0.05; *, Ɨ, ǂ: group distribution). No characteristic failure modes can be detected. In conclusion, all of the pull-off forces reflect retention values that seem to be sufficiently high for clinical use. Additional airborne-particle abrasion of VA does not result in significantly better retention but can be recommended.
