{"title":"Comparison of Mechanical and Surface Properties between Conventional and CAD/CAM Provisional Restorations.","authors":"Napatsorn Wechkunanukul, Kornuma Klomjit, Thawanrat Kumtun, Pongsiri Jaikumpun, Santiphab Kengtanyakich, Awutsadaporn Katheng","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1791965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study compared the flexural strength, surface hardness, and surface roughness of conventional, milled, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed provisional restorations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong> Bar-shaped polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm<sup>3</sup>) and disc-shaped specimens (9 × 2 mm<sup>2</sup>) were fabricated using three different techniques (<i>n</i> = 10/group): conventional (SR Ivocron C&B, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), milling (Aidite Temp PMMA Blocks, Aidite, Qinhuangdao, China), and 3D printing (Asiga DentaTOOTH, Asiga, Sydney, Australia). Flexural strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Vickers hardness and surface roughness tests were performed on the disc-shaped specimens using a micro-Vickers hardness tester and atomic force microscopy, respectively.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis: </strong> Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference was conducted to compare the differences value between groups (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) provisional restorative material exhibited a significantly higher flexural strength (125.16 ± 6.83 MPa) compared with both the traditional (109.74 ± 14.14 MPa) and 3D-printed (71.09 ± 9.09 MPa) materials (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The conventional material had a higher Vickers hardness (19.27 ± 0.41 kgf/mm<sup>2</sup>) compared with the milled (18.53 ± 0.32 kgf/mm<sup>2</sup>) and 3D-printed (17.80 ± 1.85 kgf/mm<sup>2</sup>) materials, though the difference was statistically significant only between the conventional and 3D-printed groups. The surface roughness of the milled CAD/CAM material (8.80 ± 2.70 nm) was significantly lower than that of the 3D-printed material (24.27 ± 9.82 nm) (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The provisional restorations fabricated using milled PMMA technology provide adequate flexural strength, surface hardness, and low surface roughness, offering a viable alternative for creating provisional restorations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the flexural strength, surface hardness, and surface roughness of conventional, milled, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed provisional restorations.
Materials and methods: Bar-shaped polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm3) and disc-shaped specimens (9 × 2 mm2) were fabricated using three different techniques (n = 10/group): conventional (SR Ivocron C&B, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), milling (Aidite Temp PMMA Blocks, Aidite, Qinhuangdao, China), and 3D printing (Asiga DentaTOOTH, Asiga, Sydney, Australia). Flexural strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Vickers hardness and surface roughness tests were performed on the disc-shaped specimens using a micro-Vickers hardness tester and atomic force microscopy, respectively.
Statistical analysis: Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference was conducted to compare the differences value between groups (p < 0.05).
Results: The milled computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) provisional restorative material exhibited a significantly higher flexural strength (125.16 ± 6.83 MPa) compared with both the traditional (109.74 ± 14.14 MPa) and 3D-printed (71.09 ± 9.09 MPa) materials (p < 0.05). The conventional material had a higher Vickers hardness (19.27 ± 0.41 kgf/mm2) compared with the milled (18.53 ± 0.32 kgf/mm2) and 3D-printed (17.80 ± 1.85 kgf/mm2) materials, though the difference was statistically significant only between the conventional and 3D-printed groups. The surface roughness of the milled CAD/CAM material (8.80 ± 2.70 nm) was significantly lower than that of the 3D-printed material (24.27 ± 9.82 nm) (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The provisional restorations fabricated using milled PMMA technology provide adequate flexural strength, surface hardness, and low surface roughness, offering a viable alternative for creating provisional restorations.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
