Author:
Hajjaj Maher S.,Alamoudi Rana A. A.,Babeer Walaa A.,Rizg Waleed Y.,Basalah Ahmad A.,Alzahrani Saeed J.,Yeslam Hanin E.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Various methods can be used for creating zirconia dental restorations, including 3-dimensional (3D) printing and computer-aided design/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling. The fused deposition modeling (FDM) printing method for zirconia presents numerous advantages, albeit research on the mechanical properties of these materials and resultant restorations remains scarce. Such developments are undeniably intriguing and warrant further investigation. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the impact of the sintering firing cycle (Conventional vs. Speed sintering) on the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and Vickers Microhardness of milled vs. FDM printed zirconia.
Methods
A total of 60 bars (2 × 5 × 27 mm) were fabricated for flexural strength testing, along with 40 discs (12 × 1.5 mm) for Vickers microhardness testing. Half of the specimens underwent conventional sintering, while the other half underwent a speed sintering cycle. The flexural strength and modulus were determined by a three-point bending test in a universal testing machine. The microhardness of the specimens was evaluated using a Vickers microhardness tester. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-way ANOVA test with a post-hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Results
CAD/CAM milled zirconia had significantly higher flexural strength and modulus than FDM-printed zirconia. The sintering process did not significantly affect the flexural strength or modulus of milled or FDM-printed zirconia. The milled speed sintering group had significantly higher values in the Vickers microhardness test compared to the other groups.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of FDM-printed zirconia specimens were not found to be comparable to those of milled zirconia. Speed sintering cycle may produce milled zirconia restorations with similar flexural strength and modulus to conventional sintering, and even higher Vickers Microhardness values.
Funder
Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K, Lu X, Shi H, Lee ES, Jiang HB. A review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning. 2021;2021:9950131.
2. Prosthodontics. 3D printing, polymethyl methacrylate acrylic, and fully milled zirconia for anterior implant restorations: the brave new world of prosthetic dentistry. In., vol. 63: Academy of General Dentistry. ; 2015: 11–13.
3. Gad MM, Fouda SM. Factors affecting flexural strength of 3D-printed resins: a systematic review. J Prosthodontics: Official J Am Coll Prosthodontists. 2023;32(S1):96–110.
4. Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent. 2014;2014:783948.
5. Balhaddad AA, Garcia IM, Mokeem L, Alsahafi R, Majeed-Saidan A, Albagami HH, Khan AS, Ahmad S, Collares FM, Della Bona A et al. Three-dimensional (3D) printing in dental practice: applications, areas of interest, and level of evidence. Clin Oral Invest 2023.