Bond strength of vinyl polysiloxane tray adhesive to 3D-printed tray materials: A comparison study.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Gregory Neil Wilkins, Sloan D McLaughlin, Steven E Handel, Jennifer V Sabol
{"title":"Bond strength of vinyl polysiloxane tray adhesive to 3D-printed tray materials: A comparison study.","authors":"Gregory Neil Wilkins, Sloan D McLaughlin, Steven E Handel, Jennifer V Sabol","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To understand the effectiveness of traditional vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) tray adhesive on 3D-printed custom tray material.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Custom tray specimens were designed using Meshmixer (Meshmixer, San Rafael, CA, USA) and made of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) Megatray (Select Dental, New York, USA), Formlabs Custom Tray Resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA), and Asiga DentaTRAY (Asiga, Sydney, Australia). Each tray was designed to have a flat 25 mm x 25 mm base, a wall of 6 mm height angled at 45 degrees to the base, and an attachment area for testing. The UDMA samples served as the study's control group. Printed trays were either unaltered or abraded with 100-µm aluminum oxide at 30 bar. VPS Tray Adhesive (Kerr, Michigan, USA) was placed on the trays and allowed to dry in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for use. Aquasil Ultra + Smart Wetting Tray Impression Material (Charlotte, North Carolina, USA) was placed on the tray and allowed to set. A universal testing machine (Model E10000, Instron Corp, Massachusetts, USA) was used to place 1.4 kg of pressure on the tray specimen to mimic intraoral pressure. Then, it was pulled to conduct the peel test, separating the custom tray from the VPS. A one-way ANOVA was performed with tray group serving as the independent variable and maximum load to peel as the dependent variable. Two independent planned comparisons were performed to test impression material (Asiga vs. Formlabs) and effects of abrasion (Unaltered vs. Air-Particle Abrasion).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Asiga-Unaltered tray group exhibited the highest adhesive properties of all trays, with a mean force of adhesive failure of 76.94 ± 6.98 N. The lowest was the Asiga-Air-Particle Abrasion group with a mean value of 56.78 ± 6.07 N. The Asiga-Unaltered test group results reflect the most similar results to the UDMA control group with values of 76.94 ± 6.98 N and 75.12 ± 6.77 N, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Asiga DentaTRAY Resin performed the best with the highest load to peel values when compared to the control and Formlabs Custom Tray Resin. It was also determined that air-particle abrading of the 3D-printed trays resulted in lower values of adhesion. Some 3D-printed resins could provide comparable, if not better retention of VPS when compared to traditional UDMA tray material.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70254","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To understand the effectiveness of traditional vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) tray adhesive on 3D-printed custom tray material.

Materials and methods: Custom tray specimens were designed using Meshmixer (Meshmixer, San Rafael, CA, USA) and made of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) Megatray (Select Dental, New York, USA), Formlabs Custom Tray Resin (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA), and Asiga DentaTRAY (Asiga, Sydney, Australia). Each tray was designed to have a flat 25 mm x 25 mm base, a wall of 6 mm height angled at 45 degrees to the base, and an attachment area for testing. The UDMA samples served as the study's control group. Printed trays were either unaltered or abraded with 100-µm aluminum oxide at 30 bar. VPS Tray Adhesive (Kerr, Michigan, USA) was placed on the trays and allowed to dry in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for use. Aquasil Ultra + Smart Wetting Tray Impression Material (Charlotte, North Carolina, USA) was placed on the tray and allowed to set. A universal testing machine (Model E10000, Instron Corp, Massachusetts, USA) was used to place 1.4 kg of pressure on the tray specimen to mimic intraoral pressure. Then, it was pulled to conduct the peel test, separating the custom tray from the VPS. A one-way ANOVA was performed with tray group serving as the independent variable and maximum load to peel as the dependent variable. Two independent planned comparisons were performed to test impression material (Asiga vs. Formlabs) and effects of abrasion (Unaltered vs. Air-Particle Abrasion).

Results: The Asiga-Unaltered tray group exhibited the highest adhesive properties of all trays, with a mean force of adhesive failure of 76.94 ± 6.98 N. The lowest was the Asiga-Air-Particle Abrasion group with a mean value of 56.78 ± 6.07 N. The Asiga-Unaltered test group results reflect the most similar results to the UDMA control group with values of 76.94 ± 6.98 N and 75.12 ± 6.77 N, respectively.

Conclusions: The Asiga DentaTRAY Resin performed the best with the highest load to peel values when compared to the control and Formlabs Custom Tray Resin. It was also determined that air-particle abrading of the 3D-printed trays resulted in lower values of adhesion. Some 3D-printed resins could provide comparable, if not better retention of VPS when compared to traditional UDMA tray material.

乙烯基聚硅氧烷托盘粘合剂与3d打印托盘材料的结合强度:对比研究。
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
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
171
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书