Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background/AimThe interaction between the ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) with distinct materials utilized for obtaining dental models can affect the performance of resulting mouthguards. This study attempted to evaluate the effect of different materials for conventional (dental stone) or 3D‐printed (resin) models on EVA's physical and mechanical properties and surface characteristics.Material and MethodsEVA sheets (Bioart) were laminated over four model types: GIV, conventional Type IV dental stone model (Zhermak); ReG, resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone model (Zero Stone); 3DnT, 3D resin printed model (Anycubic) without surface treatment; 3DT, 3D‐printed model (Anycubic) with water‐soluble gel (KY Jelly Lubricant, Johnson & Johnson) coating during post‐curing process. The EVA specimens were cut following the ISO 37‐II standard (n = 30). Shore A hardness was measured before and after plasticization on the contact (internal) or opposite (external) surfaces with the model. The breaking force (F, N), elongation (EL, mm), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS, MPa) were measured using a universal testing machine. Macro‐photography and scanning electron microscopy were adopted for classifying the EVA surface alteration. Data were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by Tukey's test (α = .05).ResultsPlasticization significantly decreased Shore A values for the tested EVA regardless of the model type (p < .001). Higher F, El, and UTS values were verified for the EVA with 3DT and GIV models compared to ReG and 3DnT (p < .001). 3DnT models resulted in severe surface alteration and a greater reduction of the mechanical properties of the EVA.ConclusionThe interaction of EVA with 3D resin‐printed models without surface treatment or resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone models significantly affected the physical and mechanical properties of this material. The utilization of water‐soluble gel coating during the post‐curing process of 3D resin printed models improved the mechanical properties of the EVA, similarly when this material was plasticized over conventional Type IV dental stone model.
Background/AimThe interaction between the ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) with distinct materials utilized for obtaining dental models can affect the performance of resulting mouthguards. This study attempted to evaluate the effect of different materials for conventional (dental stone) or 3D‐printed (resin) models on EVA's physical and mechanical properties and surface characteristics.Material and MethodsEVA sheets (Bioart) were laminated over four model types: GIV, conventional Type IV dental stone model (Zhermak); ReG, resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone model (Zero Stone); 3DnT, 3D resin printed model (Anycubic) without surface treatment; 3DT, 3D‐printed model (Anycubic) with water‐soluble gel (KY Jelly Lubricant, Johnson & Johnson) coating during post‐curing process. The EVA specimens were cut following the ISO 37‐II standard (n = 30). Shore A hardness was measured before and after plasticization on the contact (internal) or opposite (external) surfaces with the model. The breaking force (F, N), elongation (EL, mm), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS, MPa) were measured using a universal testing machine. Macro‐photography and scanning electron microscopy were adopted for classifying the EVA surface alteration. Data were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by Tukey's test (α = .05).ResultsPlasticization significantly decreased Shore A values for the tested EVA regardless of the model type (p < .001). Higher F, El, and UTS values were verified for the EVA with 3DT and GIV models compared to ReG and 3DnT (p < .001). 3DnT models resulted in severe surface alteration and a greater reduction of the mechanical properties of the EVA.ConclusionThe interaction of EVA with 3D resin‐printed models without surface treatment or resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone models significantly affected the physical and mechanical properties of this material. The utilization of water‐soluble gel coating during the post‐curing process of 3D resin printed models improved the mechanical properties of the EVA, similarly when this material was plasticized over conventional Type IV dental stone model.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is vital for understanding dental traumatology (DT) biomechanics, aiding diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcome prediction. This review explores FEA applications in DT research, evaluates their quality and outcomes, and assesses methodological aspects. Accordingly, recommendations for future researchers are provided. The study adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews and registered in Open Science framework. A comprehensive search using relevant text‐words and MeSH terms was performed in established databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed all Finite element analysis (FEA)‐based Dental traumatology (DT) studies without language or publication year restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of bias tool for the use of finite element analysis in dentistry (ROBFEAD) tool. Forty‐six studies published from 2001 to 2023 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The studies were categorized into five domains and six subdomains based on objectives. Maxillary central incisors and surrounding structures were commonly modelled (n = 27). Most studies utilized Computed tomography (CT), Cone Beam CT, or micro CT. Traumatic injury forces ranged from 100 N to 2000 N, and occlusal forces ranged from 150 N to 350 N. All studies were rated as high risk of bias. Fory‐six studies were categorized, with most focusing on stress distribution and fracture patterns in dento‐alveolar structures under various conditions, while few assessed displacements. Methodological quality lacked robustness in model development and substructure properties. Future studies should address these limitations and enhance reporting practices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.