The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제13권3호
  • /
  • Pages.144-151
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Wear of 3D printed and CAD/CAM milled interim resin materials after chewing simulation

  • Myagmar, Gerelmaa (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ahn, Jin-Soo (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yeo, In-Sung Luke (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yoon, Hyung-In (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.04.09
  • 심사 : 2021.06.08
  • 발행 : 2021.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the wear resistance and surface roughness of three interim resin materials, which were subjected to chewing simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three interim resin materials were evaluated: (1) three-dimensional (3D) printed (digital light processing type), (2) computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milled, and (3) conventional polymethyl methacrylate interim resin materials. A total of 48 substrate specimens were prepared. The specimens were divided into two subgroups and subjected to 30,000 or 60,000 cycles of chewing simulation (n = 8). The wear volume loss and surface roughness of the materials were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS. The mean ± standard deviation values of wear volume loss (in mm3) against the metal abrader after 60,000 cycles were 0.10 ± 0.01 for the 3D printed resin, 0.21 ± 0.02 for the milled resin, and 0.44 ± 0.01 for the conventional resin. Statistically significant differences among volume losses were found in the order of 3D printed, milled, and conventional interim materials (P<.001). After 60,000 cycles of simulated chewing, the mean surface roughness (Ra; ㎛) values for 3D printed, milled, and conventional materials were 0.59 ± 0.06, 1.27 ± 0.49, and 1.64 ± 0.44, respectively. A significant difference was found in the Ra value between 3D printed and conventional materials (P=.01). CONCLUSION. The interim restorative materials for additive and subtractive manufacturing digital technologies exhibited less wear volume loss than the conventional interim resin. The 3D printed interim restorative material showed a smoother surface than the conventional interim material after simulated chewing.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, and Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (Project Number: 202011A02).

참고문헌

  1. Drago C. Frequency and type of prosthetic complications associated with interim, immediately loaded full-arch prostheses: a 2-year retrospective chart review. J Prosthodont 2016;25:433-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12343
  2. Drago C. Cantilever lengths and anterior-posterior spreads of interim, acrylic resin, full-arch screw-retained prostheses and their relationship to prosthetic complications. J Prosthodont 2017;26:502-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12426
  3. Patras M, Naka O, Doukoudakis S, Pissiotis A. Management of provisional restorations' deficiencies: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:26-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00467.x
  4. Perry RD, Magnuson B. Provisional materials: key components of interim fixed restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012;33:59-60, 62.
  5. Burns DR, Beck DA, Nelson SK. Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on contemporary provisional fixed prosthodontic treatment: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:474-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00259-2
  6. Priest G. Esthetic potential of single-implant provisional restorations: selection criteria of available alternatives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006;18:326-38; discussion 339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2006.00044.x
  7. Zafar MS. Prosthodontic applications of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA): an update. Polymers (Basel) 2020;12:2299. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102299
  8. Savabi O, NejatiDanesh F. A method for fabrication of temporary restoration on solid abutment of ITI implants. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:419. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.79
  9. Park JM, Ahn JS, Cha HS, Lee JH. Wear resistance of 3D printing resin material opposing zirconia and metal antagonists. Materials (Basel) 2018;11:1043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11061043
  10. Park JY, Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Bae SY, Kim JH, Kim WC. In vitro assessment of the marginal and internal fits of interim implant restorations fabricated with different methods. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:536-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.012
  11. Unkovskiy A, Bui PH, Schille C, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Huettig F, Spintzyk S. Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin. Dent Mater 2018 ;34:e324-33.
  12. Javaid M, Haleem A. Current status and applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: a literature-based review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2019;9: 179-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.04.004
  13. Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent 2014;2014:783948. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/783948
  14. Alevizakos V, Mitov G, Teichert F, von See C. The color stability and wear resistance of provisional implant restorations: a prospective clinical study. Clin Exp Dent Res 2020;6:568-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.311
  15. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, Ferracane JL, Bertassoni LE. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34:192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
  16. Preis V, Behr M, Kolbeck C, Hahnel S, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of substructure ceramics and veneering porcelains. Dent Mater 2011;27:796-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.001
  17. Krejci I, Albert P, Lutz F. The influence of antagonist standardization on wear. J Dent Res 1999;78:713-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345990780021201
  18. Jung YG, Peterson IM, Kim DK, Lawn BR. Lifetime-limiting strength degradation from contact fatigue in dental ceramics. J Dent Res 2000;79:722-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790020501
  19. DeLong R, Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, Pintado MR. The wear of dental amalgam in an artificial mouth: a clinical correlation. Dent Mater 1985;1:238-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(85)80050-6
  20. Rayyan MM, Aboushelib M, Sayed NM, Ibrahim A, Jimbo R. Comparison of interim restorations fabricated by CAD/CAM with those fabricated manually. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:414-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.007
  21. Stawarczyk B, Ozcan M, Trottmann A, Schmutz F, Roos M, Hammerle C. Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:325-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60309-1
  22. Pham DM, Gonzalez MD, Ontiveros JC, Kasper FK, Frey GN, Belles DM. Wear resistance of 3D printed and prefabricated denture teeth opposing zirconia. J Prosthodont 2021 Jan 24. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13339. Epub ahead of print.
  23. Tasin S, Ismatullaev A, Usumez A. Comparison of surface roughness and color stainability of 3-dimensionally printed interim prosthodontic material with conventionally fabricated and CAD-CAM milled materials. J Prosthet Dent 2021:S0022-3913(21)00075-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.027. Epub ahead of print.
  24. Simoneti DM, Pereira-Cenci T, Dos Santos MBF. Comparison of material properties and biofilm formation in interim single crowns obtained by 3D printing and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2020:S0022-3913(20)30513-8.
  25. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  26. Buergers R, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:461-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60146-2
  27. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004; 196:42-5; discussion 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
  28. Revilla-Leon M, Morillo JA, Att W, Ozcan M. Chemical composition, Knoop hardness, surface roughness, and adhesion aspects of additively manufactured dental interim materials. J Prosthodont 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13302. Epub ahead of print.
  29. Shim JS, Kim JE, Jeong SH, Choi YJ, Ryu JJ. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124:468-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034
  30. Rosentritt M, Behr M, Gebhard R, Handel G. Influence of stress simulation parameters on the fracture strength of all-ceramic fixed-partial dentures. Dent Mater 2006;22:176-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.024
  31. Rosentritt M, Behr M, van der Zel JM, Feilzer AJ. Approach for valuating the influence of laboratory simulation. Dent Mater 2009;25:348-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.08.009
  32. Hahnel S, Behr M, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Two-body wear of artificial acrylic and composite resin teeth in relation to antagonist material. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 101:269-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60051-2
  33. Johansson A, Haraldson T, Omar R, Kiliaridis S, Carlsson GE. An investigation of some factors associated with occlusal tooth wear in a selected high-wear sample. Scand J Dent Res 1993;101:407-15.
  34. Johansson A, Kiliaridis S, Haraldson T, Omar R, Carlsson GE. Covariation of some factors associated with occlusal tooth wear in a selected high-wear sample. Scand J Dent Res 1993;101:398-406.
  35. Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT, Heo SJ. A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1048-55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x
  36. Kadokawa A, Suzuki S, Tanaka T. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:258-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.016
  37. Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent 1996;24:141-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00043-7
  38. Oh WS, Delong R, Anusavice KJ. Factors affecting enamel and ceramic wear: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:451-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.123851