Effect of material and antagonist type on the wear of occlusal devices with different compositions fabricated by using conventional, additive, and subtractive manufacturing.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Additive (AM) and subtractive (SM) manufacturing have become popular for fabricating occlusal devices with materials of different chemical compositions. However, knowledge on the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear characteristics of occlusal devices fabricated by using different methods is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of material and antagonist type on the wear of occlusal devices fabricated by using conventional manufacturing, AM, and SM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two-hundred and forty Ø10×2-mm disk-shaped specimens were fabricated by using heat-polymerized polymethylmethacrylate (control, CM), AM clear device resin fabricated in 3 different orientations (horizontal [AMH], diagonal [AMD], and vertical [AMV]), SM polymethylmethacrylate (SMP), and SM ceramic-reinforced polyetheretherketone (SMB) (n=40). Specimens were then divided into 4 groups based on the antagonists: steatite ceramic (SC); multilayered zirconia (ZR); lithium disilicate (EX); and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) used for thermomechanical aging (n=10). After aging, the volume loss (mm3) and maximum wear depth (µm) were digitally evaluated. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α=.05). RESULTS: The interaction between the device material and the antagonist affected volume loss and maximum depth of wear (P<.001). AMH had volume loss and depth of wear that was either similar to or higher than those of other materials (P≤.044). When SC was used, CM had higher volume loss and depth of wear than AMV, and, when EX was used, AMD had higher volume loss and depth of wear than SMP (P≤.013). SC and ZR led to higher volume loss of CM and AMH than EX and led to the highest depth of wear for these materials, while ZR also led to the highest volume loss and depth of wear of AMD and AMV (P≤.019). EX led to the lowest volume loss and depth of wear of AMV and SMP and to the lowest depth of wear of AMH (P≤.021). Regardless of the antagonist, SMB had the lowest volume loss and depth of wear (P≤.005). CONCLUSIONS: AMH mostly had higher volume loss and depth of wear, while SMB had the lowest volume loss, and its depth of wear was not affected by the tested antagonists. ZR mostly led to higher volume loss and maximum depth of wear, while EX mostly led to lower volume loss and maximum depth of wear of the tested occlusal device materials.

Comparison of wear and fracture resistance of additively and subtractively manufactured screw-retained, implant-supported crowns.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Additively manufactured resins indicated for fixed definitive prostheses have been recently marketed. However, knowledge on their wear and fracture resistance when fabricated as screw-retained, implant-supported crowns and subjected to artificial aging is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the volume loss, maximum wear depth, and fracture resistance of screw-retained implant-supported crowns after thermomechanical aging when fabricated using additively and subtractively manufactured materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two additively manufactured composite resins (Crowntec [CT] and VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]) and 2 subtractively manufactured materials (1 reinforced composite resin, Brilliant Crios [BC] and 1 polymer-infiltrated ceramic network, Vita Enamic [EN]) were used to fabricate standardized screw-retained, implant-supported crowns. After fabrication, the crowns were cemented on titanium base abutments and then tightened to implants embedded in acrylic resin. A laser scanner with a triangular displacement sensor (LAS-20) was used to digitize the preaging state of the crowns. Then, all crowns were subjected to thermomechanical aging (1.2 million cycles under 50 N) and rescanned. A metrology-grade analysis software program (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) was used to superimpose postaging scans over preaging scans to calculate the volume loss (mm3) and maximum wear depth (mm). Finally, all crowns were subjected to a fracture resistance test. Fracture resistance and volume loss were evaluated by using 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey Honestly significant difference (HSD) tests, whereas the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were used to analyze maximum wear depth. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the Weibull modulus and characteristic strength data (α=.05). RESULTS: Material type affected the tested parameters (P<.001). CT and VS had higher volume loss and maximum wear depth than BC and EN (P<.001). EN had the highest fracture resistance among tested materials (P<.001), whereas BC had higher fracture resistance than CT (P=.011). The differences among tested materials were not significant when the Weibull modulus was considered (P=.199); however, VE had the highest characteristic strength (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Additively manufactured screw-retained, implant-supported crowns had higher volume loss and maximum wear depth. All materials had fracture resistance values higher than the previously reported masticatory forces of the premolar region; however, the higher characteristic strength of the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic network may indicate its resistance to mechanical complications.