Rani D'haese, Charlotte Hermans, Jana Hauspie, Stefan Vandeweghe
{"title":"铣削和3D打印复合材料衬垫的配合和断裂载荷的体外研究","authors":"Rani D'haese, Charlotte Hermans, Jana Hauspie, Stefan Vandeweghe","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the fit and fracture load of 3D printed and milled composite onlays.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An onlay preparation of a lower right molar was duplicated 28 times by means of 3D printing (Model 2.0, Nextdent, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). Fourteen onlays were milled (Brilliant Crios, Coltène, Whaledent AG, Switzerland) and 14 onlays were 3D printed (Nextdent C&B MHF, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). The marginal and internal fit were evaluated using the silicone-replica technique. For each impression, two sections were made in the silicone material. Each slice was photographed using a digital microscope and 13 measurements were performed on both slices using ImageJ. Next the onlays were cemented on their corresponding models (relyX Universal/SBU+, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and tested in a universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) to determine the fracture load.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The printed onlays showed a significant better marginal and internal fit (p<0.05). The marginal and internal fit for the 3D printed onlays was respectively 78µm (SD 23µm) and 222µm (SD 30µm) and for the milled onlays 100µm (SD 38µm) and 249µm (SD 55µm). In contrast, the milled onlays showed significant better results in terms of fracture load (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limits of this in vitro study, the printing process demonstrated a better fit, but with lower mechanical properties. Both the fit of the 3D printed and milled composite onlays were within the clinical acceptable limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fit and Fracture Load of Milled and 3D Printed Composite Onlays, an In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Rani D'haese, Charlotte Hermans, Jana Hauspie, Stefan Vandeweghe\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.9081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the fit and fracture load of 3D printed and milled composite onlays.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An onlay preparation of a lower right molar was duplicated 28 times by means of 3D printing (Model 2.0, Nextdent, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). Fourteen onlays were milled (Brilliant Crios, Coltène, Whaledent AG, Switzerland) and 14 onlays were 3D printed (Nextdent C&B MHF, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). The marginal and internal fit were evaluated using the silicone-replica technique. For each impression, two sections were made in the silicone material. Each slice was photographed using a digital microscope and 13 measurements were performed on both slices using ImageJ. Next the onlays were cemented on their corresponding models (relyX Universal/SBU+, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and tested in a universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) to determine the fracture load.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The printed onlays showed a significant better marginal and internal fit (p<0.05). The marginal and internal fit for the 3D printed onlays was respectively 78µm (SD 23µm) and 222µm (SD 30µm) and for the milled onlays 100µm (SD 38µm) and 249µm (SD 55µm). In contrast, the milled onlays showed significant better results in terms of fracture load (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limits of this in vitro study, the printing process demonstrated a better fit, but with lower mechanical properties. Both the fit of the 3D printed and milled composite onlays were within the clinical acceptable limits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-24\",\"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.9081\",\"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.9081","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:本体外研究的目的是评估和比较3D打印和铣削复合材料的贴合和断裂载荷。材料和方法:采用3D打印技术,重复制作右下磨牙28次(Model 2.0, Nextdent, 3D systems, Soesterburg, Netherlands)。14个薄片被研磨(Brilliant Crios, colt, Whaledent AG,瑞士),14个薄片被3D打印(Nextdent C&B MHF, 3D systems, Soesterburg,荷兰)。使用硅树脂复制技术评估了边缘和内部拟合。对于每个印痕,硅胶材料制作了两个部分。每张切片用数码显微镜拍摄,并用ImageJ对两片切片进行13次测量。接下来,在相应的模型(relyX Universal/SBU+, 3M ESPE, Seefeld,德国)上进行胶结,并在通用试验机(AGS-X, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan)上进行测试,以确定断裂载荷。结论:在体外研究的范围内,打印工艺显示出更好的贴合性,但力学性能较低。3D打印和铣削复合材料的贴合度均在临床可接受的范围内。
Fit and Fracture Load of Milled and 3D Printed Composite Onlays, an In Vitro Study.
Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the fit and fracture load of 3D printed and milled composite onlays.
Materials and methods: An onlay preparation of a lower right molar was duplicated 28 times by means of 3D printing (Model 2.0, Nextdent, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). Fourteen onlays were milled (Brilliant Crios, Coltène, Whaledent AG, Switzerland) and 14 onlays were 3D printed (Nextdent C&B MHF, 3D systems, Soesterburg, the Netherlands). The marginal and internal fit were evaluated using the silicone-replica technique. For each impression, two sections were made in the silicone material. Each slice was photographed using a digital microscope and 13 measurements were performed on both slices using ImageJ. Next the onlays were cemented on their corresponding models (relyX Universal/SBU+, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and tested in a universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) to determine the fracture load.
Results: The printed onlays showed a significant better marginal and internal fit (p<0.05). The marginal and internal fit for the 3D printed onlays was respectively 78µm (SD 23µm) and 222µm (SD 30µm) and for the milled onlays 100µm (SD 38µm) and 249µm (SD 55µm). In contrast, the milled onlays showed significant better results in terms of fracture load (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the printing process demonstrated a better fit, but with lower mechanical properties. Both the fit of the 3D printed and milled composite onlays were within the clinical acceptable limits.