» Articles » PMID: 39336386

Comparison of Fracture Strength of Milled and 3D-Printed Crown Materials According to Occlusal Thickness

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2024 Sep 28
PMID 39336386
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to measure the fracture strengths and hardness of final restorative milled and 3D-printed materials and evaluate the appropriate crown thickness for their clinical use for permanent prosthesis. One type of milled material (group M) and two types of 3D-printed materials (groups P1 and P2) were used. Their crown thickness was set to 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm for each group, and the fracture strength was measured. Vickers hardness was measured and analyzed to confirm the hardness of each material. Scanning electron microscopy was taken to observe the surface changes of the 3D-printed materials under loads of 900 and 1500 N. With increased thickness, the fracture strength significantly increased for group M but significantly decreased for group P1. For group P2, the fracture strengths for the thicknesses of 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm significantly differed, but that for 1.0 mm did not differ from those for other thicknesses. The hardness of group M was significantly higher than that of groups P1 and P2. For all thicknesses, the fracture strength was higher than the average occlusal force for all materials; however, an appropriate crown thickness is required depending on the material and component.

Citing Articles

Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed vs. Subtractively Manufactured Composite Resins for Permanent Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Mandurino M, Cortili S, Coccoluto L, Greco K, Cantatore G, Gherlone E Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(5).

PMID: 40077210 PMC: 11901179. DOI: 10.3390/ma18050985.

References
1.
Othman A, Sandmair M, Alevizakos V, von See C . The fracture resistance of 3D-printed versus milled provisional crowns: An in vitro study. PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0285760. PMC: 10473469. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285760. View

2.
Pratap B, Gupta R, Bhardwaj B, Nag M . Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019; 55(1):126-138. PMC: 6819877. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2019.09.004. View

3.
Al-Makramani B, Razak A, Abu-Hassan M . Comparison of the load at fracture of Turkom-Cera to Procera AllCeram and In-Ceram all-ceramic restorations. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18(6):484-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2009.00467.x. View

4.
Ozcan M, Jonasch M . Effect of Cyclic Fatigue Tests on Aging and Their Translational Implications for Survival of All-Ceramic Tooth-Borne Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2016; 27(4):364-375. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12566. View

5.
Rezaie F, Farshbaf M, Dahri M, Masjedi M, Maleki R, Amini F . 3D Printing of Dental Prostheses: Current and Emerging Applications. J Compos Sci. 2024; 7(2). PMC: 11031267. DOI: 10.3390/jcs7020080. View