Selin Çelik Öge, Cafer Anıl Erdem, Murat Eser, Orhun Ekren
{"title":"不同材料修复后临时 3DP 打印树脂机械性能的评估:体外研究","authors":"Selin Çelik Öge, Cafer Anıl Erdem, Murat Eser, Orhun Ekren","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D-printed provisional restoration material after it was repaired using different materials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Bar specimens were manufactured using 3D-printing technology in accordance with the ISO 10477:2020 standards and divided into five groups randomly. For repair material application and replacement on the standardized silicone mold, the test specimens were ground at the center by 1 × 2 × 2 mm. No grinding was done on the control group specimens. Flowable composite, bis-acryl composite resin, polymethyl methacrylate resin, and temporary 3D-printing resin were used as repair materials (n = 16). The specimens underwent a three-point bending (3PB) test with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute to assess their flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (FM). The data received statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. Weibull analysis was performed, and the Weibull modulus of the specimens was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Control group specimens showed the highest FS (142 ± 12.6 MPa) and FM (4,497 ± 1,205 MPa) values. Among the test groups, the use of temporary 3D-printing resin as a repair material exhibited the greatest FS (67 ± 33.3 MPa) values and showed statistical significance when compared to all other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Repairing 3D-printed provisional resin material weakens its mechanical properties. However, using the original 3D-printed provisional resin material can be an effective choice for implementing minor modifications and additions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"538-544"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties of Provisional 3D-Printed Resin After Repair with Different Materials: An In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Selin Çelik Öge, Cafer Anıl Erdem, Murat Eser, Orhun Ekren\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.9172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D-printed provisional restoration material after it was repaired using different materials.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Bar specimens were manufactured using 3D-printing technology in accordance with the ISO 10477:2020 standards and divided into five groups randomly. For repair material application and replacement on the standardized silicone mold, the test specimens were ground at the center by 1 × 2 × 2 mm. No grinding was done on the control group specimens. Flowable composite, bis-acryl composite resin, polymethyl methacrylate resin, and temporary 3D-printing resin were used as repair materials (n = 16). The specimens underwent a three-point bending (3PB) test with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute to assess their flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (FM). The data received statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. Weibull analysis was performed, and the Weibull modulus of the specimens was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Control group specimens showed the highest FS (142 ± 12.6 MPa) and FM (4,497 ± 1,205 MPa) values. Among the test groups, the use of temporary 3D-printing resin as a repair material exhibited the greatest FS (67 ± 33.3 MPa) values and showed statistical significance when compared to all other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Repairing 3D-printed provisional resin material weakens its mechanical properties. However, using the original 3D-printed provisional resin material can be an effective choice for implementing minor modifications and additions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"538-544\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9172\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估使用不同材料修复的三维打印临时修复材料的力学性能:根据 ISO 10477:2020 标准,使用三维打印技术制作棒状试样,并随机分为 5 组。在标准硅胶模具上涂抹和更换修复材料时,将试样中心打磨 1x2x2 mm。对照组试样未进行打磨。使用可流动复合材料、双丙烯酸复合树脂、聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯树脂和临时 3D 打印树脂作为修复材料(n=16)。试样进行了三点弯曲(3PB)试验,十字头速度为 1 毫米/分钟,以评估其抗弯强度(FS)和抗弯模量(FM)。数据采用单因子方差分析和 Tukey 检验进行统计分析。进行了 Weibull 分析,并计算了试样的 Weibull 模量:结果:对照组试样的 FS 值(142±12.6 兆帕)和 FM 值(4497±1205 兆帕)最高。在各试验组中,使用 3D 打印临时树脂作为修复材料的 FS 值最大(67±33.3 MPa),与其他各组相比具有统计学意义:结论:修复三维打印临时树脂材料会削弱其机械性能。结论:修复三维打印临时树脂材料会削弱其机械性能,但利用三维打印临时树脂材料自制的树脂可以有效地对其进行微小的修改和添加。
Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties of Provisional 3D-Printed Resin After Repair with Different Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Purpose: To evaluate the mechanical properties of the 3D-printed provisional restoration material after it was repaired using different materials.
Materials and methods: Bar specimens were manufactured using 3D-printing technology in accordance with the ISO 10477:2020 standards and divided into five groups randomly. For repair material application and replacement on the standardized silicone mold, the test specimens were ground at the center by 1 × 2 × 2 mm. No grinding was done on the control group specimens. Flowable composite, bis-acryl composite resin, polymethyl methacrylate resin, and temporary 3D-printing resin were used as repair materials (n = 16). The specimens underwent a three-point bending (3PB) test with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute to assess their flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (FM). The data received statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. Weibull analysis was performed, and the Weibull modulus of the specimens was calculated.
Results: Control group specimens showed the highest FS (142 ± 12.6 MPa) and FM (4,497 ± 1,205 MPa) values. Among the test groups, the use of temporary 3D-printing resin as a repair material exhibited the greatest FS (67 ± 33.3 MPa) values and showed statistical significance when compared to all other groups.
Conclusions: Repairing 3D-printed provisional resin material weakens its mechanical properties. However, using the original 3D-printed provisional resin material can be an effective choice for implementing minor modifications and additions.