All ETDs from UAB

Advisory Committee Chair

Nathaniel C Lawson

Advisory Committee Members

Nathaniel Lawson

John Burgess

Augusto Robles

Amjad Javed

Document Type

Thesis

Date of Award

2021

Degree Name by School

Master of Science in Dentistry (MScD) School of Dentistry

Abstract

Background: 3D printing, the next step in digital dentistry, has improved the technical accuracy in treating patients. There are many advantages of 3D-printed techniques in the field of prosthodontics. It can be clearly experienced from an intraoral scanner, with its digital data, making many physical working models. With the recent 3D-printed, we can eliminate the traditional impression technique, similar to the fabrication procedure. The milling method, which includes a computerized programmed pattern of cutting the material with, but can be a wastage of materials along with producing noise, heat, and other components (Park, Ahn, Cha, & Lee, 2018)Objectives: To evaluate the flexural strength, modulus, translucency, color stability, and gloss of three types of 3-D printed materials (provisional crown materials, denture base materials, occlusal bite splint materials) compared to control groups of conventionally processed materials. Methods: The flexural Strength and Modulus were calculated using a universal testing machine. The translucency and stain resistance which was measured by spectrophotometer. The gloss measurement was performed using a gloss meter. Results: Part 1: Most 3D-printed crown and bridge materials had lower flexural strength than traditional materials. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, Saremco-Crowntec from the 3D-printed material had similar values to Luxa temp traditional material. All the denture base materials had higher flexural strength than the traditional material. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, only Dentona-Mack 4d showed similar flexural strength to traditional material. Part 2: The majority of 3D-printed materials had a lower modulus than the traditional materials, one-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, Saremco-Crowntec from the 3D-printed material had similar values to Tempsmart traditional material. Almost all the 3D-printed denture base materials had higher modulus than the traditional materials except the Dentca-Denture base. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, Dentca-Denture base, Asiga-Denture base, and NextDent-Denture base had similar value to the traditional material. Part 3: Almost all the 3D-printed crown and bridge materials had similar gloss value to traditional material. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, Dentca-Denture had the highest gloss measurement while 3D Materials-Teeth A1 had the lowest. All other 3D-printed materials had similar values to some of the traditional materials. Part 4: All 3D-printed crown and bridge materials had higher translucency properties than the traditional materials. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. Tukey’s HSD showed no similar values since all then 3D-printed materials had higher translucency values. Almost all the 3D-printed denture base materials had higher translucency except Qura-Qura base material. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, Tukey’s HSD test showed similar values to traditional materials. Part 5: Most 3D-printed crown and bridge materials showed higher staining properties than traditional materials. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, only Dentca-Dentca teeth A1 showed similar staining properties to traditional materials. The majority of the 3D-printed denture base materials had higher staining properties than the traditional material. One-way ANOVA (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between the materials. However, according to Tukey’s HSD test, the Qura-Qura base and NextDent-Denture base showed similar staining properties to the traditional material. Conclusions: Overall, within the limitations of this study, even though a significant similarity between the 3D-printed and traditional materials could not be found, this study was able to showcase the different properties of each of the materials allowing the user to choose, based on the use and requirements in each of the patients. Because of the inherent benefits of 3D-printed technology, this study highlights the need for further research on the existing 3D-printed material to outperform the existing conventional materials and improve the durability of the 3D printed structures and the complete patient experience. A more complete understanding of each of these materials' physical and chemical properties and their performance could help choose the best 3D-printed materials to be used and help improve their properties by considering other means of enhancing the overall performance of these materials. Keywords: Flexural strength, modulus, translucency & color stability (staining), 3D-printed materials, and traditional materials.

Included in

Dentistry Commons

Share

COinS