Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To investigate how surface treatment affects fracture force, flexural strength, and dynamic loading cycles until failure of 3D-printed restorations.</p> Materials and methods <p>Specimens (7 groups; <i>n</i> = 8 per group) were 3D-printed from an acrylate-based crown and bridge material. After cleaning and post-polymerization, specimens were treated with either silicon carbide paper (1000 grit; 1000/4000 grit) or blasting (Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>; 1&#xa0;bar/125 µm; 2&#xa0;bar/125 µm; 1&#xa0;bar/250 µm) to simulate laboratory treatment. Surface roughness (Arithmetic mean Sa/maximum roughness height Sz; ISO 25178-2); fracture force (FF) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS; ISO 6872) were determined. The number of dynamic load cycles (LC) to failure was determined under cyclic loading in a BFS staircase approach. Statistics: ANOVA, Bonferroni-test, Kaplan-Meier survival, Pearson correlation; α = 0.05.</p> Results <p>BFS ranged between 94.4&#xa0;MPa and 199.9&#xa0;MPa, FF between 260.6&#xa0;N and 428.6&#xa0;N and Sa/Sz between 0.0/1.0&#xa0;μm and 1.8/18.4&#xa0;μm. BFS, FF and Sa/Sz showed significant differences between the treatments (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and individual groups (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.013). Mean LC ranged between 204,364 and 267,637 cycles. ANOVA comparisons (<i>p</i> = 0.706) and Log Rank test (Chi<sup>2</sup>: 10,835; <i>p</i> = 0.094; Fig.&#xa0;2) revealed no significant differences between the loading cycles. Surface treatment with either silicon carbide papers or blasting protocols had a significant influence on FF, BFS, Sa, and Sz, but not on LC.</p> Conclusions <p>Surface treatment affected the fracture force and biaxial fracture strength of a 3D-printed crown. It showed no influence on the long-term dynamic behavior.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Smooth surfaces improve the stability of a restoration fabricated from 3D-printing resins. Extensive surface roughness treatment before cementation can reduce the stability of a crown.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Influence of surface treatment on roughness, fracture force, flexural strength, and dynamic loading of a 3D-printed crown and bridge material

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月30日

查看全文
  • Michael Benno Schmidt,
  • Sebastian Hahnel,
  • Angelika Rauch,
  • Martin Rosentritt

摘要

Objectives

To investigate how surface treatment affects fracture force, flexural strength, and dynamic loading cycles until failure of 3D-printed restorations.

Materials and methods

Specimens (7 groups; n = 8 per group) were 3D-printed from an acrylate-based crown and bridge material. After cleaning and post-polymerization, specimens were treated with either silicon carbide paper (1000 grit; 1000/4000 grit) or blasting (Al2O3; 1 bar/125 µm; 2 bar/125 µm; 1 bar/250 µm) to simulate laboratory treatment. Surface roughness (Arithmetic mean Sa/maximum roughness height Sz; ISO 25178-2); fracture force (FF) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS; ISO 6872) were determined. The number of dynamic load cycles (LC) to failure was determined under cyclic loading in a BFS staircase approach. Statistics: ANOVA, Bonferroni-test, Kaplan-Meier survival, Pearson correlation; α = 0.05.

Results

BFS ranged between 94.4 MPa and 199.9 MPa, FF between 260.6 N and 428.6 N and Sa/Sz between 0.0/1.0 μm and 1.8/18.4 μm. BFS, FF and Sa/Sz showed significant differences between the treatments (p < 0.001) and individual groups (p ≤ 0.013). Mean LC ranged between 204,364 and 267,637 cycles. ANOVA comparisons (p = 0.706) and Log Rank test (Chi2: 10,835; p = 0.094; Fig. 2) revealed no significant differences between the loading cycles. Surface treatment with either silicon carbide papers or blasting protocols had a significant influence on FF, BFS, Sa, and Sz, but not on LC.

Conclusions

Surface treatment affected the fracture force and biaxial fracture strength of a 3D-printed crown. It showed no influence on the long-term dynamic behavior.

Clinical relevance

Smooth surfaces improve the stability of a restoration fabricated from 3D-printing resins. Extensive surface roughness treatment before cementation can reduce the stability of a crown.