Surface roughness and shear bond strength to composite resin of additively manufactured interim restorative material with different printing orientations.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Additive manufacturing (AM) is a technology that has been recently introduced into dentistry for fabricating dental devices, including interim restorations. Printing orientation is one of the important and influential factors in AM that affects the accuracy, surface roughness, and mechanical characteristics of printed objects. However, the optimal print orientation for best bond strength to 3D-printed interim restorations remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of printing orientation on the surface roughness, topography, and shear bond strength of AM interim restorations to composite resin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped specimens (Ø20×10 mm) were designed by a computer-aided design software program (Geomagic freeform), and a standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. The STL file was used for the AM of 60 disks in 3 different printing orientations (0, 45, and 90 degrees) by using E-Dent 400 C&B material. An autopolymerizing interim material (Protemp 4) was used as a control group (CNT), and specimens were fabricated by using the injecting mold technique (n=20). Surface roughness (Sa, Sz parameters) was measured by using a 3D-laser scanning confocal microscope (CLSM) at ×20 magnification. For shear bond testing, the specimens were embedded in polymethylmethacrylate autopolymerized resin (n=20). A flowable composite resin was bonded by using an adhesive system. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 1 day and thermocycled 5000 times. The shear bond strength (SBS) was measured at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). RESULTS: The 45-degree angulation printing group reported the highest Sa, followed by the CNT and the 90-degree and 0-degree angulations with significant difference between them (P<.001). The CNT showed the highest Sz, followed by the 45-degree, 90-degree, and 0-degree angulations. The mean ±standard deviation SBS was 28.73 ±5.82 MPa for the 90-degree, 28.21 ±10.69 MPa for the 45-degree, 26.21 ±11.19 MPa for the 0-degree angulations and 25.39 ±4.67 MPa for the CNT. However, no statistically significant difference was found in the SBS among the groups (P=.475). CONCLUSIONS: Printing orientation significantly impacted the surface roughness of 3D-printed resin for interim restorations. However, printing orientation did not significantly affect the bond strength with composite resin.

The Fracture Resistance of Additively Manufactured Monolithic Zirconia vs. Bi-Layered Alumina Toughened Zirconia Crowns When Cemented to Zirconia Abutments. Evaluating the Potential of 3D Printing of Ceramic Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

(1) Background: This study compared the fracture resistance of additively manufactured monolithic zirconia and bi-layered alumina toughened zirconia crowns on implants. (2) Methods: Maxillary model with a dental implant replacing right second bicuspid was obtained. Custom abutments and full-contour crowns for additively manufactured monolithic zirconia and bi-layered alumina reinforced zirconia crowns (n = 10) were fabricated. The crowns were cemented to implant-supported zirconia abutments and the assembly fixed onto resin blocks. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the data. (3) Results: Although additively manufactured monolithic zirconia crowns demonstrated a higher mean fracture resistance than bi-layered alumina toughened zirconia crowns, statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in fracture resistance between the two groups. All specimens fractured at the implant-abutment interface. (4) Conclusions: Additively manufactured bi-layered alumina toughened zirconia crowns demonstrated similar fracture resistance to additively manufactured monolithic zirconia crowns when cemented to implant-supported zirconia abutments.