Effect of different materials for conventional and 3D‐printed models on the mechanical properties of ethylene‐vinyl acetate utilized for fabricating custom‐fit mouthguards

Abstract

AbstractBackground/AimThe interaction between the ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) with distinct materials utilized for obtaining dental models can affect the performance of resulting mouthguards. This study attempted to evaluate the effect of different materials for conventional (dental stone) or 3D‐printed (resin) models on EVA's physical and mechanical properties and surface characteristics.Material and MethodsEVA sheets (Bioart) were laminated over four model types: GIV, conventional Type IV dental stone model (Zhermak); ReG, resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone model (Zero Stone); 3DnT, 3D resin printed model (Anycubic) without surface treatment; 3DT, 3D‐printed model (Anycubic) with water‐soluble gel (KY Jelly Lubricant, Johnson & Johnson) coating during post‐curing process. The EVA specimens were cut following the ISO 37‐II standard (n = 30). Shore A hardness was measured before and after plasticization on the contact (internal) or opposite (external) surfaces with the model. The breaking force (F, N), elongation (EL, mm), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS, MPa) were measured using a universal testing machine. Macro‐photography and scanning electron microscopy were adopted for classifying the EVA surface alteration. Data were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by Tukey's test (α = .05).ResultsPlasticization significantly decreased Shore A values for the tested EVA regardless of the model type (p < .001). Higher F, El, and UTS values were verified for the EVA with 3DT and GIV models compared to ReG and 3DnT (p < .001). 3DnT models resulted in severe surface alteration and a greater reduction of the mechanical properties of the EVA.ConclusionThe interaction of EVA with 3D resin‐printed models without surface treatment or resin‐reinforced Type IV dental stone models significantly affected the physical and mechanical properties of this material. The utilization of water‐soluble gel coating during the post‐curing process of 3D resin printed models improved the mechanical properties of the EVA, similarly when this material was plasticized over conventional Type IV dental stone model.