• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.1089-1097
• /
• 2019

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of provisional restorative resins fabricated using dental three-dimensional (3D) printers. Methods: Provisional restorative resins were fabricated using the first molar of the right mandibular. Three groups comprising a total of 24 samples of such resins were fabricated. The prepared abutment was scanned initially and then designed using a computer-aided design (CAD) software. The conventional subtractive manufacturing system was employed to fabricate the first group of resins, while the second and third groups were fabricated using a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer and a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer, respectively. The internal surfaces of the resins were scanned and 3D measurements of the resins were taken to confirm their accuracy. Results: The root-mean-square deviation (RMS±SD) of the accuracy of the resins fabricated using the conventional subtractive manufacturing system, DLP 3D printer, and SLA 3D printer were 68.83±2.22 ㎛, 74.63±6.23 ㎛, and 61.74±4.09 ㎛, respectively. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test showed significant differences between the three groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Provisional restorative resins fabricated using DLP and SLA 3D printers demonstrated clinically-acceptable results.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.341-347
• /
• 2020

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of post-curing method on the flexural strength of provisional restorative resins produced by a digital light processing printer. Methods: A total of 20 specimens were produced, with a length of 64 mm, width of 10 mm, and thickness of 3.3 mm using a digital light processing printer. Two types of provisional restorative resins made with different post-curing methods were investigated and divided into conventional and vacuum groups. For the flexural strength test, each group was prepared by each method according to ISO 10477, and the flexural strength was measured with a universal testing machine. For statistical analysis, data were analyzed by independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The flexural strengths of the conventional and vacuum groups were 151.89 MPa and 131.94 MPa, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, provisional restorative resins produced with vacuum demonstrated lower flexural strength than those produced with conventional postcuring method.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.1-6
• /
• 2012

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and bis-acryl composite resin reinforced with polyethylene and glass fibers. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three groups of rectangular test specimens (n = 15) of each of the two resin/fiber reinforcement were prepared for flexural strength test and unreinforced group served as the control. Specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture. The mean flexural strengths (MPa) was compared by one way ANOVA test, followed by Scheffe analysis, using a significance level of 0.05. Flexural strength between fiber-reinforced resin groups were compared by independent samples t-test. RESULTS. For control groups, the flexural strength for PMMA (215.53 MPa) was significantly lower than for bis-acryl composite resin (240.09 MPa). Glass fiber reinforcement produced significantly higher flexural strength for both PMMA (267.01 MPa) and bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa), but the polyethylene fibers showed no significant difference (PMMA resin-218.55 MPa and bis-acryl composite resin-241.66 MPa). Among the reinforced groups, silane impregnated glass fibers showed highest flexural strength for bis-acryl composite resin (305.65 MPa). CONCLUSION. Of two fiber reinforcement methods evaluated, glass fiber reinforcement for the PMMA resin and bis-acryl composite resin materials produced highest flexural strength. Clinical implications. On the basis of this in-vitro study, the use of glass and polyethylene fibers may be an effective way to reinforce provisional restorative resins. When esthetics and space are of concern, glass fiber seems to be the most appropriate method for reinforcing provisional restorative resins.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.225-231
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare fracture and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins fabricated by additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, and conventional direct technique. Materials and methods: Five types of provisional restorative resin made with different methods were investigated: Stereolithography apparatus (SLA) 3D printer (S3Z), two digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer (D3Z, D3P), milling method (MIL), conventional method (CON). For fracture strength test, premolar shaped specimens were prepared by each method and stored in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Compressive load was measured using a universal testing machine (UTM). For flexural strength test, rectangular bar specimens ($25{\times}2{\times}2mm$) were prepared by each method according to ISO 10477 and flexural strength was measured by UTM. Results: Fracture strengths of the S3Z, D3Z, and D3P groups fabricated by additive manufacturing were not significantly different from those of MIL and CON groups (P>.05/10=.005). On the other hand, the flexural strengths of S3Z, D3P, and MIL groups were significantly higher than that of CON group (P<.05), but the flexural strength of D3Z group was significantly lower than that of CON group (P<.05). Conclusion: Within the limitation of our study, provisional restorative resins made from additive manufacturing showed clinically comparable fracture and flexural strength as those made by subtractive manufacturing and conventional method.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.221-227
• /
• 2000

Provisional fixed partial dentures(FPDs) are an important part of many prosthodontic treatment procedures. These provisional fixed prostheses must fulfill biologic, mechanical, and esthetic requirements to be considered successful. Consideration of all these factors and requirements are important because provisional resin restorations may be worn over a long period to assess the results of periodontal and endodontics therapies, and also during the restorative phase of implant reconstructive procedures. This in vitro study examined flexual strength of four resins commonly used for fixed provisional prostheses. The effects of polymerization conditions were also evaluated. The four resins tested were : Caulk Temporary bridge resin(L.D. Caulk Co. Dentsply International Millford), Jet(Lang Dental Mfg. Co. Chicago. ILL. U.S.A), Alike (Coe Laboratories. Inc. Chicago. ILL. U.S.A) and Tokuso Curefast (Coe Laboratories. Inc. Chicago. ILL. U.S.A) The test specimens were 65mm long, 14mm wide, and 3.5mm thickness. 10 specimens of four resins were cured for 15 minutes at atmospheric pressure and 10 specimens of four resins were cured at an additional pressure of approximately 20 psi. A total of 80 specimens were prepared. The flexual strength was determined by three-point bending test. Data were analysed with the Paired samples T-test and Tukey student-range test Within the limitations imposed in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn : 1. Under the condition of bench curing, Caulk Temporary bridge resin showed the highest flexual strength. In decreasing order, the flexual strength of the other materials was as follows : Jet, Tokuso Curefast, Alike, and Caulk Temporary bridge resin demonstrated significantly higher strength than other resins. 2. Under the condition of pressure curing, Jet showed the highest flexual strength. In decreasing order, the flexual strength of the other materials was as follows : Caulk Temporary bridge resin, Tokuso Curefast, and Alike. There were all statistically significant differences among four resins 3. There was a statistically significant difference between bench- and pressure-cured specimens in all four materials.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.259-264
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the color stability of provisional restorative materials fabricated by 3D printing, dental milling, and conventional materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS. For the experimental groups, two commercially available 3D-printing provisional resins (E-Dent 100; EnvisionTEC GmbH, Germany & VeroGlaze™; Stratasys^®, USA), two dental milling blocks (PMMA Disk; Yamahachi Dental Co., Japan & Telio^®CAD; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein), and two conventional materials (Alike™; GC Co., Japan & Luxatemp automix plus; DMG, Germany) were used. The water sorption and solubility test were (n=10, respectively) carried out according to ISO4049:2000 (International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland). For the color stability test (n=10), coffee and black tea were used as staining solutions, and the specimens were stored for 12 weeks. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) (P<.05). RESULTS. Alike and Veroglaze showed the highest values and Luxatemp showed the lowest water sorption. In the color stability test, the ΔE of conventional materials varied depending on the staining solution. PMMA milling blocks showed a relatively low ΔE up to 4 weeks, and then significantly increased after 8 weeks (P<.05). 3D-printed materials exhibited a high ΔE or a significant increase over time (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The degree of discoloration increased with time, and a visually perceptible color difference value (ΔE) was shown regardless of the materials and solutions. PMMA milled and 3D-printed materials showed more rapid change in discoloration after 8 weeks.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.690-698
• /
• 2006

Statement of problems. The heat produced during polymerization of polymer-based provisional materials may cause thermal damage to the vital pulp. Purpose. This study was performed to evaluate the exotherm reaction of the polymerbased provisional materials during polymerization by differential scanning calorimetry and to compare the temperature changes of different types of resins. Material and methods. Three dimethacrylate-based materials (Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Plus, Luxatemp Fluorescence) and five monomethacrylate- based material (Snap, Alike, Unifast TRAD, Duralay, Jet) were selected. Temperature changes of polymer-based provisional materials during polymerization in this study were evaluated by D.S.C Q-1000 (TA Instrument, Wilmington, DE, USA). The following three measurements were determined from the temperature versus time plot: (1) peak temperature, (2) time to reach peak temperature, (3) heat capacity. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison Bonferroni test at the significance level of 0.05. Results. The mean peak temperature was $39.5^{\circ}C({\pm}\;1.0)$. The peak temperature of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Duralay > Unifast TRAD, Alike > Jet > Luxatemp Plus, Protemp 3 Garant, Snap, Luxatemp Fluorescence. The mean time to reach peak temperature was 95.95 sec $({\pm}\;64.0)$. The mean time to reach peak temperature of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Snap, Jet > Duralay > Alike > Unifast TRAD > Luxatemp Plus, Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Fluorescence. The mean heat capacity was 287.2 J/g $({\pm}\;107.68)$. The heat capacity of the polymer-based provisional materials decreased in the following order: Duralay > TRAD, Jet, Alike > Snap, Luxatemp Fluorescence, Protemp 3 Garant, Luxatemp Plus. Conclusion. The heat capacity of materials, determined by D.S.C., is a factor in determining the thermal insulating properties of restorative materials. The peak temperature of PMMA was significantly higher than others (PEMA, dimethacrylate). No significant differences were found among PEMA (Snap) and dimethacrylate (P >0.05). The time to reach peak temperature was greatest with PEMA, followed by PMMA and dimethacrylate. The heat capacity of PMMA was significantly higher than others (PEMA, dimethacrylate). No significant differences were found among PEMA and dimethacrylate (P >0.05).