磨制、3D打印和传统义齿基托材料表面特性的比较评估:临床应用的意义。

IF 1.8
Farahnaz Nejatidanesh, Omid Savabi, Mohammad Khodaei, Maryam Gheisarifar, Yousef Mohseni Homagarani
{"title":"磨制、3D打印和传统义齿基托材料表面特性的比较评估:临床应用的意义。","authors":"Farahnaz Nejatidanesh, Omid Savabi, Mohammad Khodaei, Maryam Gheisarifar, Yousef Mohseni Homagarani","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared surface wettability, roughness, porosity, and hardness of milled (IvoBase CAD), 3D-printed (DentaBase, a light-cured resin), and conventional (heat- polymerized/injection-molded) PMMA denture base materials to assess their clinical suitability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 40 specimens (15×10×3.3 mm) from four different types of denture base materials (IvoBase CAD, DentaBase 3D Printed, ProBase Hot Heat Polymerized, and IvoBase High-impact Injection Molded Resin) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions. Surface properties were evaluated by using the sessile drop method to measure wettability, digital laser profilometer to measure surface roughness, the gravimetric method to measure porosity, and Vickers micro hardness test to measure surface hardness. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and a relative post hoc test (P value ≤ 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Milled and 3D-printed materials showed significantly lower roughness (0.15-0.12 µm) vs. conventional groups (0.16-0.20 µm; p<0.001). Wettability and hardness varied significantly (p<0.001), with DentaBase exhibiting the highest hardness (23.94 VHN). Porosity did not differ (p=0.633).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Milled and 3D-printed resins demonstrated better surface properties, suggesting clinical advantages in reducing microbial adhesion and improving durability. However, heat-polymerized PMMA remains a viable option for specific applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Surface Properties of Milled, 3D- Printed, and Conventional Denture Base Materials: Implications for Clinical Use.\",\"authors\":\"Farahnaz Nejatidanesh, Omid Savabi, Mohammad Khodaei, Maryam Gheisarifar, Yousef Mohseni Homagarani\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.9285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared surface wettability, roughness, porosity, and hardness of milled (IvoBase CAD), 3D-printed (DentaBase, a light-cured resin), and conventional (heat- polymerized/injection-molded) PMMA denture base materials to assess their clinical suitability.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 40 specimens (15×10×3.3 mm) from four different types of denture base materials (IvoBase CAD, DentaBase 3D Printed, ProBase Hot Heat Polymerized, and IvoBase High-impact Injection Molded Resin) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions. Surface properties were evaluated by using the sessile drop method to measure wettability, digital laser profilometer to measure surface roughness, the gravimetric method to measure porosity, and Vickers micro hardness test to measure surface hardness. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and a relative post hoc test (P value ≤ 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Milled and 3D-printed materials showed significantly lower roughness (0.15-0.12 µm) vs. conventional groups (0.16-0.20 µm; p<0.001). Wettability and hardness varied significantly (p<0.001), with DentaBase exhibiting the highest hardness (23.94 VHN). Porosity did not differ (p=0.633).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Milled and 3D-printed resins demonstrated better surface properties, suggesting clinical advantages in reducing microbial adhesion and improving durability. However, heat-polymerized PMMA remains a viable option for specific applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"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.9285\",\"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.9285","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:本研究比较了研磨(IvoBase CAD)、3d打印(DentaBase,一种光固化树脂)和传统(热聚合/注射成型)PMMA义齿基托材料的表面润湿性、粗糙度、孔隙度和硬度,以评估它们的临床适用性。材料和方法:根据制造商的说明,制作四种不同类型的义齿基托材料(IvoBase CAD, DentaBase 3D printing, ProBase Hot Heat Polymerized和IvoBase High-impact Injection molding Resin),共40个样品(15×10×3.3 mm)。采用固定式液滴法测量润湿性、数字激光轮廓仪测量表面粗糙度、重量法测量孔隙度和维氏显微硬度测试测量表面硬度,对表面性能进行了评价。统计学分析采用方差分析和相对事后检验(P值≤0.05)。结果:铣削和3d打印材料的粗糙度(0.15-0.12µm)明显低于常规组(0.16-0.20µm;结论:磨铣树脂和3d打印树脂具有更好的表面性能,在减少微生物粘附和提高耐久性方面具有临床优势。然而,热聚合PMMA仍然是特定应用的可行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Evaluation of Surface Properties of Milled, 3D- Printed, and Conventional Denture Base Materials: Implications for Clinical Use.

Purpose: This study compared surface wettability, roughness, porosity, and hardness of milled (IvoBase CAD), 3D-printed (DentaBase, a light-cured resin), and conventional (heat- polymerized/injection-molded) PMMA denture base materials to assess their clinical suitability.

Materials and methods: A total of 40 specimens (15×10×3.3 mm) from four different types of denture base materials (IvoBase CAD, DentaBase 3D Printed, ProBase Hot Heat Polymerized, and IvoBase High-impact Injection Molded Resin) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions. Surface properties were evaluated by using the sessile drop method to measure wettability, digital laser profilometer to measure surface roughness, the gravimetric method to measure porosity, and Vickers micro hardness test to measure surface hardness. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and a relative post hoc test (P value ≤ 0.05).

Results: Milled and 3D-printed materials showed significantly lower roughness (0.15-0.12 µm) vs. conventional groups (0.16-0.20 µm; p<0.001). Wettability and hardness varied significantly (p<0.001), with DentaBase exhibiting the highest hardness (23.94 VHN). Porosity did not differ (p=0.633).

Conclusions: Milled and 3D-printed resins demonstrated better surface properties, suggesting clinical advantages in reducing microbial adhesion and improving durability. However, heat-polymerized PMMA remains a viable option for specific applications.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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