Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations

Shim, Ji Suk; Kim, Jong‐Eun; Jeong, Sang Hoon; Choi, Yeon Jo; Ryu, Jae Jun

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034

Cited by 220 publications

(257 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

206

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This issue also applies to the surface characteristics of additively manufactured denture bases. Thus, the 45° printing direction may yield greater Ra values (up to 1.09 ± 0.07 µm), than 0° and 90°, as the stepwise layer orientation produces repeated oblique edges on the specimens surface [ 25 ]. In the present study all AM specimens were printed with 45° orientation and even greater R a values of 6.61 ± 1.18 µm were encountered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Characteristics of Milled and 3D Printed Denture Base Materials Following Polishing and Coating: An In-Vitro Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: To date, no information on the polishability of milled and 3D-printed complete denture bases has been provided, which is relevant in terms of plaque accumulation. (2) Methods: three groups (n = 30) were manufactured using the cold-polymerization polymethilmethacrilate, milling (SM) and 3D printing (AM). 10 specimens of each group were left untreated (reference). 10 more specimens were pre-polished (intermediate polishing) and 10 final specimens were highgloss polished. An additional 20 specimens were 3D printed and coated with the liquid resin (coated), 10 of which were additionally polished (coated + polished). For each group Ra and Rz values, gloss value and REM images were obtained. (3). The “highgloss-polished” specimens showed statistically lower Ra and Rz values in the SM, followed by AM and conventional groups. In the AM group statistically lower surfaces roughness was revealed for highgloss-polished, “coated + polished”, and “coated” specimens, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The milled specimens demonstrated superiors surface characteristics than 3D printed and conventionally produced after polishing. The polished specimens demonstrated superior surface characteristics over coated specimens. However, the surface roughness by both polished and coated specimens was within the clinically relevant threshold of 0.2 µm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Characteristics of Milled and 3D Printed Denture Base Materials Following Polishing and Coating: An In-Vitro Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A key aspect that affects all printing technologies in the planning phase is the orientation of the print model. The print direction (xyz coordinate axis system) of the final model influences not only the printing time due to the number of layer lines, the strength due to the layer orientation, but also the accuracy due to error rates and support structures [21,22]. To leave the occlusal plane untouched for later analysis and to minimize the number of support structures required, all models were aligned vertically.…”

Section: Three-dimensional Printing Of the Models (Replicas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

Msallem

Sharma

Cao

et al. 2020

JCM

161

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the rapid progression of additive manufacturing and the emergence of new 3D printing technologies, accuracy assessment is mostly being performed on isosymmetric-shaped test bodies. However, the accuracy of anatomic models can vary. The dimensional accuracy of root mean square values in terms of trueness and precision of 50 mandibular replicas, printed with five common printing technologies, were evaluated. The highest trueness was found for the selective laser sintering printer (0.11 ± 0.016 mm), followed by a binder jetting printer (0.14 ± 0.02 mm), and a fused filament fabrication printer (0.16 ± 0.009 mm). However, highest precision was identified for the fused filament fabrication printer (0.05 ± 0.005 mm) whereas other printers had marginally lower values. Despite the statistically significance (p < 0.001), these differences can be considered clinically insignificant. These findings demonstrate that all 3D printing technologies create models with satisfactory dimensional accuracy for surgical use. Since satisfactory results in terms of accuracy can be reached with most technologies, the choice should be more strongly based on the printing materials, the intended use, and the overall budget. The simplest printing technology (fused filament fabrication) always scored high and thus is a reliable choice for most purposes. therefore apply to different fields of medicine and dentistry. With the continuous development of each individual technology, none stand out significantly from the others and so all are represented in the daily medical routine.Even though AM was introduced into medicine many years ago, the production of anatomical models often is still one of the main areas of application [3][4][5][6]. In opinion polls, surgeons still tend to regard anatomical models as advantageous for daily work [7]. For instance, anatomical models offer numerous advantages over other learning resources in understanding complex anatomical correlations [8]. The combination of optical and tactile sensitivity leads to a superior understanding and has defined the concept "touch to comprehend" [9]. A meta-analysis of 158 studies from 2005 to 2015 described further advantages such as possibilities for preoperative planning and time savings in the operating room, but emphasized that accuracy was not satisfactory in 34 studies [10]. Although most manufacturers provide the specifications in terms of accuracy, these are mostly uncertain in the final clinical application. In addition, most tests are performed on isosymmetric-shaped bodies [11], but the use of anatomical models may reveal larger dimensional errors. Measurements with skull and mandibular models revealed incorrect or completely missing anatomy [12]. Even deformations of 3D printed dental surgical guides were reported [13]. Inaccuracies in 3D printing applications can lead to inappropriate treatment that could harm the patient.Identical procedures with the same material under the same circumstances do not necessary lead to identical results. Statistical standards descr...

show abstract

“…Different water contact angle measurements were reported by other studies: PMMA 72–99° [ 20 , 21 ], 3D printed PMMA (SLA) 71–79° [ 58 ], PEEK 10–114° [ 15 , 20 , 24 , 54 ], and PEKK 64–83° [ 57 ]. The findings of the current study for PMMA and PEEK are similar to those mentioned above, but PMMA-3D and PEKK showed higher contact angles after RCP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The results of the current study after both cleaning protocols are in the reported range for PMMA and PEEK but are lower for 3D printed PMMA and PEKK. In other studies, PMMA was not polished after 3D printing, and its surface roughness varied depending on object orientation during 3D printing [ 53 , 58 ]. Meanwhile, PEKK abutment surfaces were roughened, and bonding strength was tested [ 56 , 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Different Cleaning Protocols of Polymer-Based Prosthetic Materials on the Behavior of Human Gingival Fibroblasts

Rutkūnas

Borusevicius

Liaudanskaite

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implant abutment and prosthetic materials, their surface treatment, and cleaning modalities are important factors for the formation of a peri-implant soft tissue seal and long-term stability of bone around the implant. This study aimed to investigate the influence of a polymeric material surface cleaning method on the surface roughness, water contact angle, and human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) proliferation. Polymeric materials tested: two types of milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA-Ker and PMMA-Bre), three-dimensionally (3D) printed polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA-3D), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK). Titanium (Ti) and zirconia oxide ceramics (ZrO-HT) were used as positive controls. A conventional surface cleaning protocol (CCP) was compared to a multi-step research cleaning method (RCP). Application of the RCP method allowed to reduce Sa values in all groups from 0.14–0.28 µm to 0.08–0.17 µm (p < 0.05 in PMMA-Ker and PEEK groups). Moreover, the water contact angle increased in all groups from 74–91° to 83–101° (p < 0.05 in the PEKK group), except ZrO-HT—it was reduced from 98.7 ± 4.5° to 69.9 ± 6.4° (p < 0.05). CCP resulted in higher variability of HGF viability after 48 and 72 h. RCP application led to higher HGF viability in PMMA-3D and PEKK groups after 48 h, but lower for the PMMA-Ker group (p < 0.05). After 72 h, no significant differences in HGF viability between both cleaning methods were observed. It can be concluded that the cleaning method of the polymeric materials affected surface roughness, contact angle, and HGF viability at 48 h.

show abstract

Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations

Cited by 220 publications

References 27 publications

Surface Characteristics of Milled and 3D Printed Denture Base Materials Following Polishing and Coating: An In-Vitro Study

Surface Characteristics of Milled and 3D Printed Denture Base Materials Following Polishing and Coating: An In-Vitro Study

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

The Effect of Different Cleaning Protocols of Polymer-Based Prosthetic Materials on the Behavior of Human Gingival Fibroblasts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About