Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.3.225

Comparison analysis of fracture load and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins fabricated by different methods  

Cho, Won-Tak (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Choi, Jae-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.57, no.3, 2019 , pp. 225-231 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare fracture and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins fabricated by additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, and conventional direct technique. Materials and methods: Five types of provisional restorative resin made with different methods were investigated: Stereolithography apparatus (SLA) 3D printer (S3Z), two digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer (D3Z, D3P), milling method (MIL), conventional method (CON). For fracture strength test, premolar shaped specimens were prepared by each method and stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Compressive load was measured using a universal testing machine (UTM). For flexural strength test, rectangular bar specimens ($25{\times}2{\times}2mm$) were prepared by each method according to ISO 10477 and flexural strength was measured by UTM. Results: Fracture strengths of the S3Z, D3Z, and D3P groups fabricated by additive manufacturing were not significantly different from those of MIL and CON groups (P>.05/10=.005). On the other hand, the flexural strengths of S3Z, D3P, and MIL groups were significantly higher than that of CON group (P<.05), but the flexural strength of D3Z group was significantly lower than that of CON group (P<.05). Conclusion: Within the limitation of our study, provisional restorative resins made from additive manufacturing showed clinically comparable fracture and flexural strength as those made by subtractive manufacturing and conventional method.
Keywords
Additive manufacturing; Subtractive manufacturing; Fracture strength; Flexural strength; Resin;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Park JS, Park MG. Effect of aging treatment on the flexural properties of polymer provisional restoration materials. Korean J Dent Mater 2013;40:215-21.
2 Shillingburg HT Jr, Hobo S, Whitsett LD. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago; Quintessence Publishing Co; 1997. p. 225-7.
3 Song KY, Sorensen JA. Marginal adaptation of new provisional materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 1997;13:247-55.
4 Song ES, Kim BJ, Lim YJ, Lee JJ. Survey study on the preference of dental medical personnel for dental CAD/CAM milling machines. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:188-98.   DOI
5 DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 2003;82:438-42.   DOI
6 Fuster-Torres MA, Albalat-Estela S, Alcaniz-Raya M, Penarrocha-Diago M. CAD / CAM dental systems in implant dentistry: update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14:E141-5.
7 Lee S. Prospect for 3D printing technology in medical, dental, and pediatric dental field. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 2016;43:93-108.
8 Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108-15.   DOI
9 Karaokutan I, Sayin G, Kara O. In vitro study of fracture strength of provisional crown materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:27-31.   DOI
10 Alt V, Hannig M, Wostmann B, Balkenhol M. Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 2011;27:339-47.   DOI
11 Nejatidanesh F, Momeni G, Savabi O. Flexural strength of interim resin materials for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009;18:507-11.   DOI
12 Mehrpour H, Farjood E, Giti R, Barfi Ghasrdashti A, Heidari H. Evaluation of the flexural strength of interim restorative materials in fixed prosthodontics. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17:201-6.
13 Seo DG, Roh BD. The comparison of relative reliability on biaxial and three point flexural strength testing methods of light curing composite resin. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006;31:58-65.   DOI
14 Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Chairside computer-aided direct ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 1989;20:329-39.
15 Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:760-7.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 Matsumura H, Leinfelder KF. Three-body wear of four types of light-activated composite resin veneering materials. Quintessence Int 1994;25:425-30.
18 Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;105:97-116.   DOI
19 Weaver RE, Goebel WM. Reactions to acrylic resin dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:138-42.   DOI
20 Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent 1996;24:141-8.   DOI
21 Chadwick RG. Thermocycling--the effects upon the compressive strength and abrasion resistance of three composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:533-43.   DOI
22 Park SM, Kim SK, Park JM, Kim JH, Jeon YT, Koak JY. Flexural strength of various kinds of the resin bridges fabricated with 3D printing. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2017;33:260-8.   DOI