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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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 Behavior of a 3D-Printed Denture Base Material. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the material properties of an additive manufacturing polymer with a heat-curing acrylic resin for complete dentures, testing if both met clinical standards.
  • The properties evaluated included flexural strength, elastic modulus, water sorption, solubility, and biocompatibility, with results showing significant differences in performance between the two materials.
  • While the AM polymer demonstrated good biocompatibility and maintained strength after water storage, it still requires further improvement in certain material properties to be suitable for clinical use.

Article Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate relevant material properties (flexural strength [σf], elastic modulus [E], water sorption [Wsp] and solubility [Wsl], and biocompatibility) of an additive manufacturing (AM) polymer vs a heat-curing acrylic resin (AR; control) for the manufacture of complete dentures, testing the hypothesis that fabrications from both materials would present acceptable material properties for clinical use.

Materials And Methods: The σf, E, Wsp, and Wsl were evaluated according to the ISO 20795-1:2013 standard, and the biocompatibility was evaluated using MTT and SRB assays. Disk-shaped specimens were fabricated and used for Wsp (n = 5), Wsl (n = 5), and biocompatibility (n = 3) testing. For assessment of σf and E, bar-shaped specimens (n = 30) were fabricated and stored in 37°C distilled water for 48 hours or 6 months before flexural testing in a universal testing machine with a constant displacement rate (5 ± 1 mm/minute). Data from σf, E, Wsp, Wsl, and biocompatibility tests were statistically analyzed using Student t test (α = .05). Weibull analysis was also used for σf and E data.

Results: Significant differences between the two materials were found for the evaluated material properties. Water storage for 6 months did not affect the flexural strength of the AM polymer, but this material showed inadequate σf and Wsl values.

Conclusions: Despite adequate biocompatibility and strength stability after 6 months of water storage, the AM polymer recommended for complete dentures needs further development to improve the material properties evaluated in this study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8295DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

material properties
16
wsp wsl
12
flexural strength
8
complete dentures
8
σf wsp
8
specimens fabricated
8
wsl biocompatibility
8
water storage
8
material
6
biocompatibility
5

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!