OBJECTIVES: The objective was to investigate the accuracy, storage stability, and
mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymeric dental materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three completely dentate models, two maxillary and one
mandibular each with their respective die, and three implant models were designed using
dental CAD software (3SHAPE DENTAL SYSTEM). A horseshoe-shaped solid base with
a posterior horizontal bar was utilized. The models were printed based on the
manufacturer's instructions for four weeks using six printers with the corresponding
recommended resin materials: Carbon M2 (DPR10), HeyGears A2D4K (Model HP
UV2.0), Stratasys J5 (MED610), Stratasys Origin One (DM200), Envision One (E-Model
LightDLP), and Asiga Pro4K (VeriModel) with a standard layer thickness of 50 μm
(N=72). The models were scanned after printing using Sirona inEOS X5 scanner, while the implant models were scanned using a CT scanner (GE Phoenix V|tome|x metrology edition). The full arch models were randomly assigned to three groups of storage conditions: cold environment (LT, 4 ± 1°C), hot and dry environment (HT, 50 ± 2°C), and
room temperature (RT , 25 ± 2°C, serving as the control). Each group was kept under the
designated conditions and scanned at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks. The generated STL files were
imported into a 3D inspection software for comparison with the original STL files. Four
sets of reference points (central fossa of first premolars and central fossae of second molars)
were selected to determine six distances of inter-arch segments, from which the inter-arch
distance trueness and precision deviation were measured.
For the second part of the study, maxillary Lucitone Digital Print denture base (DB) (N=5),
maxillary Lucitone IPN 3D Premium anterior and posterior teeth (N=6), and maxillary
Keystone Keysplint Soft Clear occlusal splint (N=5) were printed using two printers
(Carbon M2, Asiga Max UV) with a standard layer thickness of 50 μm for denture base
and teeth, and 100 μm for the occlusal splint. The tolerance threshold was set to 50 μm for
Lucitone IPN and 100 μm for Lucitone DB and Keysplint Soft. In-tolerance percentage
and deviation RMS were obtained and analyzed with multivariate least square mean linear
regression using JMP Pro 17 (SAS, Cary, NC) to identify significant effects (α=0.05).
The third part investigated the mechanical properties of Lucitone DB and IPN using 2
printers (Carbon M2, Asiga Max UV) as follows: flexural strength (N=10) using a threepoint
bend test, fracture toughness (N=10), creep (N=5), Vickers hardness test (N=15),
surface roughness (N=15), while Shore A hardness (N=15) and tensile strength (N=10)
were performed for Keysplint Soft Clear. Data were analyzed using one-way and multivariate least square mean linear regression followed by Tukey’s HSD test using JMP Pro 17 (SAS, Cary, NC) to identify significant effects (α=0.05).
RESULTS: The in-tolerance percentage varied significantly among printers, with Carbon M2
(CAB) showing the highest values. Stratasys (J5) displayed the highest accuracy in term of
precision, while HeyGears A2D4K (HGS), Carbon M2 (CAB), and Stratasys (J5) exhibited
the highest accuracy in term of trueness. The inter-molar segment showed the highest
deviation. No significant difference was observed in in-tolerance percentage across
different print weeks except for week 2 in one printer (Stratasys Origin1). CAB exhibited
a higher in-tolerance percentage for the DB than Asiga Max UV (ASG), with the fitting
surface having the highest in-tolerance percentage. IPN anterior teeth had a higher intolerance
percentage than posterior teeth, with ASG showing a higher value than CAB. No
statistically significant difference was found in the in-tolerance percentage of Keysplint
Soft Clear between ASG and CAB. Resin printed using ASG demonstrated higher flexural
strength, Vickers hardness, and creep, while resin printer using CAB exhibited higher
fracture toughness, with no significant difference in surface roughness between the two
printers. Lucitone IPN had higher flexural strength and Vickers hardness, surface
roughness , and lower creep and fracture toughness than Lucitone DB. CAB Keysplint
Soft had higher tensile strength than ASG, with no statistically significant difference in
Shore A hardness between the two printers.
CONCLUSION: Model dimension deviations were impacted by storage conditions and the
specific printer utilized, with high-temperature storage exhibiting the least stability.
However, no significant difference was noted between low and room temperature storage
conditions. Carbon M2 exhibited the highest level of accuracy. The of 3D-printed denture
bases and denture teeth varied across different printers. Conversely, no significant
difference in accuracy was observed for a soft occlusal splint between two printers.
Materials printed using different printers showed statistically significant different
mechanical properties.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bu.edu/oai:open.bu.edu:2144/48890 |
| Date | 28 May 2024 |
| Creators | Alshaibani, Raghdah Mohammedali |
| Contributors | Fan, Yuwei |
| Source Sets | Boston University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds