A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical properties of a 3D printing polymer for provisional restorations and artificial teeth. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate a resin-based polymer for 3D printing provisional restorations and artificial teeth by comparing its material properties and biocompatibility with bis-acryl composite resin and heat-cured acrylic resin.
  • The methods included testing the flexural strength, elastic modulus, water sorption, and solubility of different materials through mechanical tests and biocompatibility assays.
  • The findings indicated that the 3D printing polymer exhibited superior flexural strength compared to the heat-cured acrylic after aging and had better cell viability than the heat-cured acrylic, suggesting it is a viable option for dental applications.

Article Abstract

Objectives: To characterize a resin-based polymer used for 3D printing (3D) provisional restorations and artificial teeth by evaluating relevant material's properties (flexural strength (σf), elastic modulus (E), water sorption (Wsp) and solubility (Wsl)) and biocompatibility, and comparing to a bis-acryl composite resin (BA) and a heat-cured acrylic resin (AR).

Methods: Structures were fabricated from 3D, BA and AR. Bar-shaped specimens (n = 30) were submitted to three-point flexure (in 37ºC water and constant displacement rate: 1 ± 0.3 mm/min) until fracture to calculate σf and E. Additional specimens (n = 30) were aged in 37ºC distilled water for six months before testing for σf. Disc-shaped specimens (n = 5) were dried in desiccators and oven until weight stability was reached, then they were immersed in distilled water for seven days, weighed and submitted to the drying process to obtain Wsp and Wsl. SRB and MTT assays were used to evaluate biocompatibility. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis, Student-Newman-Keuls (α = .05), and Weibull distribution. ANOVA and Tukey (α = .05) were used to evaluate the biocompatibility data.

Results: 3D structures showed higher σf than AR after aging. The BA showed the lowest values for σf and E, at baseline and after aging. All materials showed Wsp and Wsl values within the recommended standard values. AR structures showed lower cell viability (71.9%) than 3D (92.9%) and BA (90.8%) when using the SRB test. No difference was found when using MTT (p > .05).

Significance: The evaluated polymer-based 3D printing material showed adequate biomechanical behavior for using as a provisional restoration and artificial teeth.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

artificial teeth
12
provisional restorations
8
restorations artificial
8
specimens n = 30
8
distilled water
8
wsp wsl
8
evaluate biocompatibility
8
σf
5
biomechanical properties
4
properties printing
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!