Comparison of Flexural Strength of Three-Dimensional Printed Three-Unit Provisional Fixed Dental Prostheses according to Build Directions
10.5856/JKDS.2019.12.1.13
- Author:
Sang Mo PARK
1
;
Ji Man PARK
;
Seong Kyun KIM
;
Seong Joo HEO
;
Jai Young KOAK
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. ksy0617@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
CAD/CAM;
Fixed partial denture;
Flexural strength;
Printing, three-dimensional
- MeSH:
Computer-Aided Design;
Dental Prosthesis;
Denture, Partial, Fixed;
Printing, Three-Dimensional;
Tooth
- From:Journal of Korean Dental Science
2019;12(1):13-19
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength of provisional fixed dental prostheses which was three-dimensional (3D) printed by several build directions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A metal jig with two abutment teeth and pontic space in the middle was fabricated. This jig was scanned with a desktop scanner and provisional restoration was designed on dental computer-aided design program. On the preprocessing software, the build angles of the restorations were arranged at 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° and support was added and resultant structure was sliced to a thickness of 100 µm. Processed restorations were printed with digital light processing type 3D printer using poly methyl meta acrylate-based resin. After washing and post-curing, compressive loading was applied at a speed of 1 mm/min on a metal jig fixed to a universal testing machine. The maximum pressure at which fracture occurred was measured. For the statistical analysis, build direction was set as the independent variable and fracture strength as the dependent variable. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc analysis was conducted to compare fracture strength among groups (α=0.05). RESULT: The mean flexural strength of provisional restoration 3D printed with the build direction of 0° was 1,053±168 N; it was 1,183±188 N at 30°, 1,178±81 N at 45°, 1,166±133 N at 60°, and 949±170 N at 90°. The group with a build direction of 90° showed significantly lower flexural strength than other groups (P<0.05). The flexural strength was significantly higher when the build direction was 30° than when it was 90° (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Among the build directions 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° set for 3D printing of fixed dental prosthesis, an orientation of 30° is recommended as an effective build direction for 3D printing.
