The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparing volumetric and biological aspects of 3D-printed interim restorations under various post-curing modes

  • Song, Gun (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Son, Ji-Won (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jang, Ji-Hyun (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Hyeon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Jang, Woo-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Bin-Na (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2020.11.02
  • Accepted : 2021.04.05
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose. This study aims to compare the volumetric change, degree of conversion (DOC), and cytotoxicity of 3D-printed restorations post-cured under three different conditions. Materials and Methods. 3D-printed interim restorations were post-cured under three different conditions and systems: 5 min, 30 min, and 24 h. Three-unit and six-unit fixed dental prostheses (n = 30 for each case) were printed; ten specimens from each group were post-cured and then scanned to compare their volumetric changes. Root-mean-squared (RMS) values of the data were acquired by superimposing the scanned files with original files. Thirty disk-shaped specimens were printed to evaluate the DOC ratio. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to compare the DOCs of 10 specimens from each group. Human gingival fibroblasts were used to measure the cell viability of every specimen (n = 7). The data from this experiment were employed for one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc comparisons. Results. Differences between the three-unit restorations were statistically insignificant, regardless of the post-curing conditions. However, for the six-unit restorations, a high RMS value was acquired when the post-curing duration was 30 min. The average DOC was approximately 56 - 62%; the difference between each group was statistically insignificant. All the groups exhibited cell viability greater than 70%, rendering them clinically acceptable. Conclusion. The post-curing conditions influenced the volume when the length of the restoration was increased. However, this deviation was found to be clinically acceptable. Additionally, post-curing did not significantly influence the DOC and cytotoxicity of the restorations.

Keywords

References

  1. Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J 2015;219:521-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914
  2. Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent 2014;2014:783948. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/783948
  3. Barazanchi A, Li KC, Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Waddell JN. Additive technology: update on current materials and applications in dentistry. J Prosthodont 2017;26: 156-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12510
  4. Quan H, Zhang T, Xu H, Luo S, Nie J, Zhu X. Photo-curing 3D printing technique and its challenges. Bioact Mater 2020;5:110-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.12.003
  5. Seime L, Hardeberg JY. Characterisation of LCD and DLP projection displays. Color Imaging Conf Final Progr Proc 2002:277-82.
  6. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  7. McGurk M, Amis AA, Potamianos P, Goodger NM. Rapid prototyping techniques for anatomical modelling in medicine. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997;79:169-74.
  8. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL, Bertassoni LE. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34:192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
  9. Taft RM, Kondor S, Grant GT. Accuracy of rapid prototype models for head and neck reconstruction. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:399-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60154-6
  10. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ, Kattadiyil MT. Comparison of denture base adaptation between CAD-CAM and conventional fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:249-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.017
  11. Steinmassl O, Dumfahrt H, Grunert I, Steinmassl PA. CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:2829-2835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2369-2
  12. Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK. Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 152:557-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.012
  13. Park SH, Lee CS. The difference in degree of conversion between light-cured and additional heat-cured composites. Oper Dent 1996;21:213-7.
  14. Susila AV, Balasubramanian V. Correlation of elution and sensitivity of cell lines to dental composites. Dent Mater 2016;32:e63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.011
  15. Samanidou VF, Kerezoudi C, Tolika E, Palaghias G. A simple isocratic HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of the five most common residual monomers released from resin-based dental restorative materials. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol 2015; 38:740-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826076.2014.968662
  16. Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP, Finer Y. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res 2013;92:989-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513504436
  17. Reymus M, Lumkemann N, Stawarczyk B. 3D-printed material for temporary restorations: impact of print layer thickness and post-curing method on degree of conversion. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:231-7.
  18. Reymus M, Stawarczyk B. In vitro study on the influence of postpolymerization and aging on the Martens parameters of 3D-printed occlusal devices. J Prosthet Dent 2020;19:S0022-3913(20)30077-9.
  19. Kalberer N, Mehl A, Schimmel M, Muller F, Srinivasan M. CAD-CAM milled versus rapidly prototyped (3D-printed) complete dentures: an in vitro evaluation of trueness. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:637-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.001
  20. Kang SY, Park JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of provisional crowns made using stereolithography apparatus and subtractive technique. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10:354-60. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.354
  21. Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 2012;28:320-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.008
  22. Leloup G, Holvoet PE, Bebelman S, Devaux J. Raman scattering determination of the depth of cure of light-activated composites: influence of different clinically relevant parameters. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:510-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00889.x
  23. Lee BN, Hong JU, Kim SM, Jang JH, Chang HS, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. Anti-inflammatory and osteogenic effects of calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. J Endod 2019;45:73-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.09.006
  24. Fuh J, Lu L, Tan C, Shen Z, Chew S. Processing and characterising photo-sensitive polymer in the rapid prototyping process. J Mater Process Technol 1999;89: 211-7.
  25. Piedra-Cascon W, Sadeghpour M, Att W, Revilla-Leon M. A vat-polymerized 3-dimensionally printed dual-material occlusal device: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 2020;S0022-3913(20)30438-8.
  26. Lin CH, Lin YM, Lai YL, Lee SY. Mechanical properties, accuracy, and cytotoxicity of UV-polymerized 3D printing resins composed of Bis-EMA, UDMA, and TEGDMA. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:349-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.002
  27. Reymus M, Fabritius R, KeBler A, Hickel R, Edelhoff D, Stawarczyk B. Fracture load of 3D-printed fixed dental prostheses compared with milled and conventionally fabricated ones: the impact of resin material, build direction, post-curing, and artificial aging-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:701-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02952-7
  28. Par M, Marovic D, Attin T, Tarle Z, Taubock TT. The effect of rapid high-intensity light-curing on micromechanical properties of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites. Sci Rep 2020;10:10560. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67641-y

Cited by

  1. Effect of Washing Condition on the Fracture Strength, and the Degree of Conversion of 3D Printing Resin vol.11, pp.24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411676
  2. Biochemical Interaction between Materials Used for Interim Prosthetic Restorations and Saliva vol.15, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010226