3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials

Anthony Tahayeri, Mary Catherine Morgan, Ana P. Fugolin, Despoina Bompolaki, Avathamsa Athirasala, Carmem S. Pfeifer, Jack L. Ferracane, Luiz E. Bertassoni

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical properties against conventionally cured provisional dental materials. Methods: Samples were 3D printed (25×2×2mm) using a commercial printable resin (NextDent C&B Vertex Dental) in a FormLabs1+ stereolithography 3D printer. The printing accuracy of printed bars was determined by comparing the width, length and thickness of samples for different printer settings (printing orientation and resin color) versus the set dimensions of CAD designs. The degree of conversion of the resin was measured with FTIR, and both the elastic modulus and peak stress of 3D printed bars was determined using a 3-point being test for different printing layer thicknesses. The results were compared to those for two conventionally cured provisional materials (Integrity®, Dentsply; and Jet®, Lang Dental Inc.). Results: Samples printed at 90° orientation and in a white resin color setting was chosen as the most optimal combination of printing parameters, due to the comparatively higher printing accuracy (up to 22% error), reproducibility and material usage. There was no direct correlation between printing layer thickness and elastic modulus or peak stress. 3D printed samples had comparable modulus to Jet®, but significantly lower than Integrity®. Peak stress for 3D printed samples was comparable to Integrity®, and significantly higher than Jet®. The degree of conversion of 3D printed samples also appeared higher than that of Integrity® or Jet®. Significance: Our results suggest that a 3D printable provisional restorative material allows for sufficient mechanical properties for intraoral use, despite the limited 3D printing accuracy of the printing system of choice.

LanguageEnglish (US)
JournalDental Materials
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Dental Materials
Printing
Crowns
Dental materials
Three Dimensional Printing
Resins
Elastic Modulus
Tooth
Color
3D printers
Stereolithography
Elastic moduli
Mechanical properties
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
Costs and Cost Analysis
CMW cement
Restoration
Computer aided design
Costs

Keywords

  • 3D printing
  • CAD/CAM
  • Digital dentistry
  • Provisional restoration
  • Temporary crown and bridge

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Materials Science(all)
  • Dentistry(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. / Tahayeri, Anthony; Morgan, Mary Catherine; Fugolin, Ana P.; Bompolaki, Despoina; Athirasala, Avathamsa; Pfeifer, Carmem S.; Ferracane, Jack L.; Bertassoni, Luiz E.

In: Dental Materials, 2017.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Tahayeri A, Morgan MC, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dental Materials. 2017. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003
Tahayeri, Anthony ; Morgan, Mary Catherine ; Fugolin, Ana P. ; Bompolaki, Despoina ; Athirasala, Avathamsa ; Pfeifer, Carmem S. ; Ferracane, Jack L. ; Bertassoni, Luiz E./ 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. In: Dental Materials. 2017
@article{dee4317bcaaa42d2bdbcef17ab87199f,
title = "3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials",
abstract = "Objectives: To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical properties against conventionally cured provisional dental materials. Methods: Samples were 3D printed (25×2×2mm) using a commercial printable resin (NextDent C&B Vertex Dental) in a FormLabs1+ stereolithography 3D printer. The printing accuracy of printed bars was determined by comparing the width, length and thickness of samples for different printer settings (printing orientation and resin color) versus the set dimensions of CAD designs. The degree of conversion of the resin was measured with FTIR, and both the elastic modulus and peak stress of 3D printed bars was determined using a 3-point being test for different printing layer thicknesses. The results were compared to those for two conventionally cured provisional materials (Integrity®, Dentsply; and Jet®, Lang Dental Inc.). Results: Samples printed at 90° orientation and in a white resin color setting was chosen as the most optimal combination of printing parameters, due to the comparatively higher printing accuracy (up to 22% error), reproducibility and material usage. There was no direct correlation between printing layer thickness and elastic modulus or peak stress. 3D printed samples had comparable modulus to Jet®, but significantly lower than Integrity®. Peak stress for 3D printed samples was comparable to Integrity®, and significantly higher than Jet®. The degree of conversion of 3D printed samples also appeared higher than that of Integrity® or Jet®. Significance: Our results suggest that a 3D printable provisional restorative material allows for sufficient mechanical properties for intraoral use, despite the limited 3D printing accuracy of the printing system of choice.",
keywords = "3D printing, CAD/CAM, Digital dentistry, Provisional restoration, Temporary crown and bridge",
author = "Anthony Tahayeri and Morgan, {Mary Catherine} and Fugolin, {Ana P.} and Despoina Bompolaki and Avathamsa Athirasala and Pfeifer, {Carmem S.} and Ferracane, {Jack L.} and Bertassoni, {Luiz E.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003",
journal = "Dental Materials",
issn = "0109-5641",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials

AU - Tahayeri,Anthony

AU - Morgan,Mary Catherine

AU - Fugolin,Ana P.

AU - Bompolaki,Despoina

AU - Athirasala,Avathamsa

AU - Pfeifer,Carmem S.

AU - Ferracane,Jack L.

AU - Bertassoni,Luiz E.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objectives: To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical properties against conventionally cured provisional dental materials. Methods: Samples were 3D printed (25×2×2mm) using a commercial printable resin (NextDent C&B Vertex Dental) in a FormLabs1+ stereolithography 3D printer. The printing accuracy of printed bars was determined by comparing the width, length and thickness of samples for different printer settings (printing orientation and resin color) versus the set dimensions of CAD designs. The degree of conversion of the resin was measured with FTIR, and both the elastic modulus and peak stress of 3D printed bars was determined using a 3-point being test for different printing layer thicknesses. The results were compared to those for two conventionally cured provisional materials (Integrity®, Dentsply; and Jet®, Lang Dental Inc.). Results: Samples printed at 90° orientation and in a white resin color setting was chosen as the most optimal combination of printing parameters, due to the comparatively higher printing accuracy (up to 22% error), reproducibility and material usage. There was no direct correlation between printing layer thickness and elastic modulus or peak stress. 3D printed samples had comparable modulus to Jet®, but significantly lower than Integrity®. Peak stress for 3D printed samples was comparable to Integrity®, and significantly higher than Jet®. The degree of conversion of 3D printed samples also appeared higher than that of Integrity® or Jet®. Significance: Our results suggest that a 3D printable provisional restorative material allows for sufficient mechanical properties for intraoral use, despite the limited 3D printing accuracy of the printing system of choice.

AB - Objectives: To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical properties against conventionally cured provisional dental materials. Methods: Samples were 3D printed (25×2×2mm) using a commercial printable resin (NextDent C&B Vertex Dental) in a FormLabs1+ stereolithography 3D printer. The printing accuracy of printed bars was determined by comparing the width, length and thickness of samples for different printer settings (printing orientation and resin color) versus the set dimensions of CAD designs. The degree of conversion of the resin was measured with FTIR, and both the elastic modulus and peak stress of 3D printed bars was determined using a 3-point being test for different printing layer thicknesses. The results were compared to those for two conventionally cured provisional materials (Integrity®, Dentsply; and Jet®, Lang Dental Inc.). Results: Samples printed at 90° orientation and in a white resin color setting was chosen as the most optimal combination of printing parameters, due to the comparatively higher printing accuracy (up to 22% error), reproducibility and material usage. There was no direct correlation between printing layer thickness and elastic modulus or peak stress. 3D printed samples had comparable modulus to Jet®, but significantly lower than Integrity®. Peak stress for 3D printed samples was comparable to Integrity®, and significantly higher than Jet®. The degree of conversion of 3D printed samples also appeared higher than that of Integrity® or Jet®. Significance: Our results suggest that a 3D printable provisional restorative material allows for sufficient mechanical properties for intraoral use, despite the limited 3D printing accuracy of the printing system of choice.

KW - 3D printing

KW - CAD/CAM

KW - Digital dentistry

KW - Provisional restoration

KW - Temporary crown and bridge

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032226414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032226414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003

M3 - Article

JO - Dental Materials

T2 - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

SN - 0109-5641

ER -