改善3d打印义齿线粘接：一项体外实验研究。

IF 4.8 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105873

Samuel Sturzenegger , Kittipit Srisanoi , Angela Stillhart , Murali Srinivasan

{"title":"改善3d打印义齿线粘接：一项体外实验研究。","authors":"Samuel Sturzenegger , Kittipit Srisanoi , Angela Stillhart , Murali Srinivasan","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of a 3D-printed denture base resin relined with conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reline resin, following various surface treatment protocols including mechanical abrasion, monomer application, and selected commercially available adhesive systems.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ninety resin specimens were 3D printed using DentaBase resin (Asiga) and divided into nine groups: GrN: control (intact) and relined groups (Gr1-Gr8) subjected to different surface treatments including, Gr1: no surface treatment, Gr2: monomer application, Gr3: sandblasting, Gr4: sandblasting + monomer application, Gr5: sandblasting + Qu-resin, Gr6: sandblasting + Visiolink, Gr7: Sandblasting + Monobond Plus + Heliobond, Gr8: sandblasting + Lukafix bonder. Specimens underwent tensile testing at 1 mm/min and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was calculated. Fracture patterns were examined microscopically. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Dunn’s post hoc test (α = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The highest median of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was observed in GrN (control, 25.9 MPa), followed by Gr4 (19.7 MPa), Gr5 (18.4 MPa), and Gr6 (17.9 MPa). Gr1 (no treatment) had the lowest median UTS (11.5 MPa). Statistically significant differences were observed between GrN and Gr1 (<em>p</em> < 0.001), GrN and Gr2 (<em>p</em> = 0.002), and GrN and Gr8 (<em>p</em> = 0.004). No significant differences were observed among Gr3, Gr4, Gr7, and Gr6 (<em>p</em> > 0.05). All relined groups exhibited adhesive failures at the denture base-reline interface.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Surface treatments improved tensile bond strength in relined 3D-printed specimens, but none restored it to control levels. Sandblasting with monomer application or with selected bonding agents produced higher bond strengths than no treatment or monomer alone.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Simple, accessible surface treatments such as sandblasting along with monomer application on the resin surfaces can significantly enhance bond strength when relining 3D-printed dentures and may be preferable over complex bonding systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 105873"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving reline bonding in 3D-printed dentures: an experimental in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Sturzenegger , Kittipit Srisanoi , Angela Stillhart , Murali Srinivasan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of a 3D-printed denture base resin relined with conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reline resin, following various surface treatment protocols including mechanical abrasion, monomer application, and selected commercially available adhesive systems.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ninety resin specimens were 3D printed using DentaBase resin (Asiga) and divided into nine groups: GrN: control (intact) and relined groups (Gr1-Gr8) subjected to different surface treatments including, Gr1: no surface treatment, Gr2: monomer application, Gr3: sandblasting, Gr4: sandblasting + monomer application, Gr5: sandblasting + Qu-resin, Gr6: sandblasting + Visiolink, Gr7: Sandblasting + Monobond Plus + Heliobond, Gr8: sandblasting + Lukafix bonder. Specimens underwent tensile testing at 1 mm/min and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was calculated. Fracture patterns were examined microscopically. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Dunn’s post hoc test (α = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The highest median of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was observed in GrN (control, 25.9 MPa), followed by Gr4 (19.7 MPa), Gr5 (18.4 MPa), and Gr6 (17.9 MPa). Gr1 (no treatment) had the lowest median UTS (11.5 MPa). Statistically significant differences were observed between GrN and Gr1 (<em>p</em> < 0.001), GrN and Gr2 (<em>p</em> = 0.002), and GrN and Gr8 (<em>p</em> = 0.004). No significant differences were observed among Gr3, Gr4, Gr7, and Gr6 (<em>p</em> > 0.05). All relined groups exhibited adhesive failures at the denture base-reline interface.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Surface treatments improved tensile bond strength in relined 3D-printed specimens, but none restored it to control levels. Sandblasting with monomer application or with selected bonding agents produced higher bond strengths than no treatment or monomer alone.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Simple, accessible surface treatments such as sandblasting along with monomer application on the resin surfaces can significantly enhance bond strength when relining 3D-printed dentures and may be preferable over complex bonding systems.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105873\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225003173\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225003173","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

摘要

目的：本体外研究旨在评估3d打印义齿基托树脂与传统PMMA线树脂的拉伸结合强度，采用各种表面处理方案，包括机械磨损，单体应用和选定的市售粘合剂系统。材料和方法:九十树脂标本3 d印刷使用DentaBase树脂(Asiga)和分成9组(n = 10):入库单:控制(完整的)和重新划线组(Gr1-Gr8)受到不同的表面处理,包括Gr1一起:没有表面处理,Gr2:单体应用,Gr3:喷砂,Gr4“:喷砂 + 单体应用,Gr5:喷砂 + Qu-resin, Gr6:喷砂 + Visiolink, Gr7:喷砂 + Monobond + + Heliobond,只:喷砂 + Lukafix连接器。试件以1 mm/min的速度进行拉伸试验，计算极限抗拉强度（UTS）。显微镜下观察断裂模式。数据分析采用Kruskal-Wallis方差分析和Dunn事后检验（α = 0.05）。结果：极限拉伸强度（UTS）中位数以GrN（对照组，25.9 MPa）最高，其次为Gr4 （19.7 MPa）、Gr5 （18.4 MPa）和Gr6 （17.9 MPa）。Gr1组（未治疗）的中位UTS最低（11.5 MPa）。GrN与Gr1 （p < 0.001）、GrN与Gr2 （p = 0.002）、GrN与Gr8 （p = 0.004）之间的差异均有统计学意义。Gr3、Gr4、Gr7、Gr6间差异无统计学意义（p < 0.05）。所有带线组均表现出义齿基线界面的粘接失效。结论：表面处理提高了3d打印标本的拉伸强度，但没有将其恢复到控制水平。喷砂与单体应用或选定的粘结剂产生更高的粘结强度比没有处理或单独单体。临床意义：简单，易于使用的表面处理，如喷砂以及在树脂表面应用单体，可以显着提高粘接强度，当修复3d打印假牙时，可能比复杂的粘接系统更可取。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Improving reline bonding in 3D-printed dentures: an experimental in vitro study

Objective

This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of a 3D-printed denture base resin relined with conventional polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) reline resin, following various surface treatment protocols including mechanical abrasion, monomer application, and selected commercially available adhesive systems.

Methods

Ninety resin specimens were 3D printed using DentaBase resin (Asiga) and divided into nine groups: GrN: control (intact) and relined groups (Gr1-Gr8) subjected to different surface treatments including, Gr1: no surface treatment, Gr2: monomer application, Gr3: sandblasting, Gr4: sandblasting + monomer application, Gr5: sandblasting + Qu-resin, Gr6: sandblasting + Visiolink, Gr7: Sandblasting + Monobond Plus + Heliobond, Gr8: sandblasting + Lukafix bonder. Specimens underwent tensile testing at 1 mm/min and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was calculated. Fracture patterns were examined microscopically. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Dunn’s post hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results

The highest median of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was observed in GrN (control, 25.9 MPa), followed by Gr4 (19.7 MPa), Gr5 (18.4 MPa), and Gr6 (17.9 MPa). Gr1 (no treatment) had the lowest median UTS (11.5 MPa). Statistically significant differences were observed between GrN and Gr1 (p < 0.001), GrN and Gr2 (p = 0.002), and GrN and Gr8 (p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed among Gr3, Gr4, Gr7, and Gr6 (p > 0.05). All relined groups exhibited adhesive failures at the denture base-reline interface.

Conclusion

Surface treatments improved tensile bond strength in relined 3D-printed specimens, but none restored it to control levels. Sandblasting with monomer application or with selected bonding agents produced higher bond strengths than no treatment or monomer alone.

Clinical Significance

Simple, accessible surface treatments such as sandblasting along with monomer application on the resin surfaces can significantly enhance bond strength when relining 3D-printed dentures and may be preferable over complex bonding systems.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.30

自引率

11.40%

发文量

349

审稿时长

35 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research. The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.