Evaluation of the tensile properties of polished and unpolished 3D SLA- and DLP-Printed specimens used for surgical guides fabrication.

S. Pop, M. Dudescu, L. Contac, Radu Vasile Pop
{"title":"Evaluation of the tensile properties of polished and unpolished 3D SLA- and DLP-Printed specimens used for surgical guides fabrication.","authors":"S. Pop, M. Dudescu, L. Contac, Radu Vasile Pop","doi":"10.2478/asmj-2023-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction: The fundamental mechanical properties of 3D printed surgical guides used in orthodontics represent an important indicator for the accuracy of the insertion of skeletal anchorage devices. The tensile strength of devices printed by stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) methods, respectively, is influenced by factors such as finishing process. Aim of the study: This study illustrates a comparison of the tensile strength in two different types of 3D printed devices (SLA, DLP respectively) undergoing or not a standard process of polishing. Material and methods: Twenty-four specimens obtained according to ASTM D638-14 (Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics) were used for the evaluation of tensile strength. Four groups of 6 samples from each category were created: SLA polished, SLA unpolished, DLP polished and DLP unpolished. After removing the support, finishing was performed to obtain smooth surfaces, according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. Type V specimen was used to perform tensile tests in accordance with the standard procedures ASTM D638-14 which recommends at least five specimens to be tested for each sample. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test showed statistically significant results at p < 0.05. SPSSv17 software was used for statistical analysis of the numerical variables, and also descriptive statistics were performed. Results: The measurements included: tensile strength (maximum load), tensile stress at maximum load and tensile strain at maximum load. The maximum load (tensile strength) of the polished specimens was lower, both for the SLA and DLP, with no statistical significance results. Conclusions: The conclusions indicated differences between maximum load and tensile stress at maximum load between polished and unpolished specimens, in both SLA and DLP groups. Althought the polishing process reduces the tensile strenght, the data analysis did not present statistically significant results.","PeriodicalId":120290,"journal":{"name":"Acta Stomatologica Marisiensis Journal","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Stomatologica Marisiensis Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/asmj-2023-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: The fundamental mechanical properties of 3D printed surgical guides used in orthodontics represent an important indicator for the accuracy of the insertion of skeletal anchorage devices. The tensile strength of devices printed by stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) methods, respectively, is influenced by factors such as finishing process. Aim of the study: This study illustrates a comparison of the tensile strength in two different types of 3D printed devices (SLA, DLP respectively) undergoing or not a standard process of polishing. Material and methods: Twenty-four specimens obtained according to ASTM D638-14 (Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics) were used for the evaluation of tensile strength. Four groups of 6 samples from each category were created: SLA polished, SLA unpolished, DLP polished and DLP unpolished. After removing the support, finishing was performed to obtain smooth surfaces, according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. Type V specimen was used to perform tensile tests in accordance with the standard procedures ASTM D638-14 which recommends at least five specimens to be tested for each sample. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test showed statistically significant results at p < 0.05. SPSSv17 software was used for statistical analysis of the numerical variables, and also descriptive statistics were performed. Results: The measurements included: tensile strength (maximum load), tensile stress at maximum load and tensile strain at maximum load. The maximum load (tensile strength) of the polished specimens was lower, both for the SLA and DLP, with no statistical significance results. Conclusions: The conclusions indicated differences between maximum load and tensile stress at maximum load between polished and unpolished specimens, in both SLA and DLP groups. Althought the polishing process reduces the tensile strenght, the data analysis did not present statistically significant results.
用于外科导向器制造的抛光和未抛光的3D SLA和dlp打印标本的拉伸性能评估。
摘要导读:用于正畸的3D打印手术导板的基本力学性能是骨骼锚定装置插入准确性的重要指标。采用立体光刻(SLA)和数字光处理(DLP)方法印刷的器件的抗拉强度分别受到整理工艺等因素的影响。研究目的:本研究比较了两种不同类型的3D打印设备(分别为SLA和DLP)在进行或不进行标准抛光过程中的抗拉强度。材料和方法:根据ASTM D638-14(塑料拉伸性能标准试验方法)获得的24个试样用于拉伸强度的评估。从每个类别中创建四组6个样品:SLA抛光,SLA未抛光,DLP抛光和DLP未抛光。移除支架后,根据制造商的建议进行整理以获得光滑的表面。V型试样按照ASTM D638-14的标准程序进行拉伸试验,该标准程序建议每个试样至少测试5个试样。单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和t检验显示p < 0.05有统计学意义。采用SPSSv17软件对数值变量进行统计分析,并进行描述性统计。结果:测量包括:抗拉强度(最大载荷)、最大载荷下的拉应力和最大载荷下的拉应变。抛光试样的最大载荷(抗拉强度)均低于抛光后的SLA和DLP,但结果无统计学意义。结论:在SLA组和DLP组中,抛光组和未抛光组的最大载荷和最大载荷下的拉伸应力存在差异。虽然抛光过程降低了抗拉强度,但数据分析没有出现统计学上显著的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信