Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019 Jul;57(3):225-231. Korean. Original Article. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.3.225
Cho WT , Choi JW .
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea. won9180@hanmail.net
Abstract

Purpose

This study was undertaken to compare fracture and flexural strength of provisional restorative resins fabricated by additive manufacturing, subtractive manufacturing, and conventional direct technique.

Materials and methods

Five types of provisional restorative resin made with different methods were investigated: Stereolithography apparatus (SLA) 3D printer (S3Z), two digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer (D3Z, D3P), milling method (MIL), conventional method (CON). For fracture strength test, premolar shaped specimens were prepared by each method and stored in distilled water at 37℃ for 24 hours. Compressive load was measured using a universal testing machine (UTM). For flexural strength test, rectangular bar specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) were prepared by each method according to ISO 10477 and flexural strength was measured by UTM.

Results

Fracture strengths of the S3Z, D3Z, and D3P groups fabricated by additive manufacturing were not significantly different from those of MIL and CON groups (P>.05/10=.005). On the other hand, the flexural strengths of S3Z, D3P, and MIL groups were significantly higher than that of CON group (P<.05), but the flexural strength of D3Z group was significantly lower than that of CON group (P<.05).

Conclusion

Within the limitation of our study, provisional restorative resins made from additive manufacturing showed clinically comparable fracture and flexural strength as those made by subtractive manufacturing and conventional method.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.