Development of 3D printed resin reinforced with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles for long-term provisional dental restorations

Aati, Sultan; Akram, Zohaib; Ngo, Hien Chi; Fawzy, A.

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2021.02.010

Cited by 70 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Water–polymer chain interaction may cause a reduction in the material’s strength, minor chemical degradation, and elution of residual monomers [ 42 ]. As a result, water sorption and solubility are crucial indices while assessing denture base durability, since they measure the material resistance to the surrounding oral fluids [ 25 , 43 ]. The 3D-printed material showed a similar tendency toward water sorption as the conventional ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After testing, 3 measurements of the notch length on the fracture surface of each specimen were recorded using the light microscope, and the average was computed and determined as the crack length (a). The K Ic was calculated in MPa m 1/2 using the subsequent mathematical statement [ 24 , 25 ]:

where

, x = a/w, P is the maximum load at fracture (N), L corresponds to the span distance (32 mm), h is the height of the specimens in mm, w is the specimen width in mm, and a is the crack length in mm. Then, the total work of fracture (W f ) was calculated in J/m 2 as follows [ 26 ]: W f = U/[2 B (H − a)] 1000 where U is the registered area beneath the load-deflection curve and serves as the energy required to fracture the specimen completely, U = ∫PdΔ in newton millimeters (Nmm), Δ is the recorded deflection for load P in newtons, B is the sample width in mm, H is the specimen height in mm, and a is the crack length in mm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3D-Printed vs. Heat-Polymerizing and Autopolymerizing Denture Base Acrylic Resins

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of two post-curing methods on the mechanical properties of a 3D-printed denture base material. Additionally, to compare the mechanical properties of that 3D-printed material with those of conventional autopolymerizing and a heat-cured denture base material. A resin for 3D-printing denture base (Imprimo®), a heat-polymerizing acrylic resin (Paladon® 65), and an autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Palapress®) were investigated. Flexural strength, elastic modulus, fracture toughness, work of fracture, water sorption, and water solubility were evaluated. The 3D-printed test specimens were post-cured using two different units (Imprimo Cure® and Form Cure®). The tests were carried out after both dry and 30 days water storage. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. Resin type had a significant effect on the flexural strength, elastic modulus, fracture toughness, and work of fracture (p < 0.001). The flexural strength and elastic modulus for the heat-cured polymer were significantly the highest among all investigated groups regardless of the storage condition (p < 0.001). The fracture toughness and work of fracture of the 3D-printed material were significantly the lowest (p < 0.001). The heat-cured polymer had the lowest significant water solubility (p < 0.001). The post-curing method had an impact on the flexural strength of the investigated 3D-printed denture base material. The flexural strength, elastic modulus, fracture toughness, work of fracture of the 3D-printed material were inferior to those of the heat-cured one. Increased post-curing temperature may enhance the flexural properties of resin monomers used for 3D-printing dental appliances.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

where

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D-Printed vs. Heat-Polymerizing and Autopolymerizing Denture Base Acrylic Resins

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16 Materials commonly used to fabricate these restorations are composite based resins, which have been widely used and available for clinicians for several years; they present some disadvantages associated with their low mechanical properties, such as low-fracture toughness which can lead to critical failure and decreased longevity. 17,18 3DP technology has been garnered increased popularity among technicians and clinicians due to the wide variety of materials and respective applications, along with ease of use. However, there currently is a lack of evidence with respect to clinical performance, as well as mechanical and biological properties of 3D materials intended for provisional and/or permanent restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D‐printed resins for provisional dental restorations: Comparison of mechanical and biological properties

Atria

Bordin

Marti

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To characterize the mechanical and biological properties of three commercially available resins, which are currently used for provisional restorations and to compare them to an experimental resin intended for definitive fixed dental prostheses.Materials and methods: Three commercially available resins: Crowntec (CT, Saremco), Temporary C&B (FL, Formlabs), C&B MFH (ND, Nextdent), and the experimental resin: Permanent Bridge (PB, Saremco) were printed and subjected to biaxial flexural strength test, finite element analysis, Weibull analysis, scanning electron microscopy, cell proliferation, immunohistochemistry and cytotoxicity assays. Samples from CT, PB, and ND were provided directly from the manufacturers ensuring ideal workflow. FL was printed using the workflow as recommended by the manufacturer, using a Formlabs 2 printer and their post-processing units Form Wash and Form Cure.Results: From the tested resins, PB yielded the best overall results in terms of mechanical properties. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity did not show any significant differences among materials. PB showed higher values for probability of survival predictions (35%) when subjected to 250 MPa loads, whereas the other materials did not reach 10%.Significance: Despite mechanical differences between the evaluated materials, the outcomes suggest that 3D printed provisional resins may be used in clinical settings, following the manufacturers indications. New materials intended for long-term use, such as the PB resin, yielded higher mechanical properties compared to the other

show abstract

“…The photoinitiation system not only determines the mechanism of the reaction, but also affects the final properties of the polymer, such as the degree of conversion and its mechanical properties. In addition, cytotoxicity and accuracy are very important, as 3D-printed dental resin is placed in the patient’s oral cavity [ 34 ]. The selection of an appropriate photoinitiator is essential to obtain the properties of the desired polymer [ 9 , 11 , 17 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytotoxicity, Colour Stability and Dimensional Accuracy of 3D Printing Resin with Three Different Photoinitiators

Kim

et al. 2022

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biocompatibility is important for the 3D printing of resins used in medical devices and can be affected by photoinitiators, one of the key additives used in the 3D printing process. The choice of ingredients must be considered, as the toxicity varies depending on the photoinitiator, and unreacted photoinitiator may leach out of the polymerized resin. In this study, the use of ethyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phenylphosphinate (TPO-L) as a photoinitiator for the 3D printing of resin was considered for application in medical device production, where the cytotoxicity, colour stability, dimensional accuracy, degree of conversion, and mechanical/physical properties were evaluated. Along with TPO-L, two conventional photoinitiators, phenylbis (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (BAPO) and diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (TPO), were considered. A total of 0.1 mol% of each photoinitiator was mixed with the resin matrix to prepare a resin mixture for 3D printing. The specimens were printed using a direct light processing (DLP) type 3D printer. The 3D-printed specimens were postprocessed and evaluated for cytotoxicity, colour stability, dimensional accuracy, degree of conversion, and mechanical properties in accordance with international standards and the methods described in previous studies. The TPO-L photoinitiator showed excellent biocompatibility and colour stability and possessed with an acceptable dimensional accuracy for use in the 3D printing of resins. Therefore, the TPO-L photoinitiator can be sufficiently used as a photoinitiator for dental 3D-printed resin.

show abstract

Development of 3D printed resin reinforced with modified ZrO2 nanoparticles for long-term provisional dental restorations

Cited by 70 publications

References 44 publications

3D-Printed vs. Heat-Polymerizing and Autopolymerizing Denture Base Acrylic Resins

3D-Printed vs. Heat-Polymerizing and Autopolymerizing Denture Base Acrylic Resins

3D‐printed resins for provisional dental restorations: Comparison of mechanical and biological properties

Cytotoxicity, Colour Stability and Dimensional Accuracy of 3D Printing Resin with Three Different Photoinitiators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About