Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 15;15(18):3773.
doi: 10.3390/polym15183773.

Fracture Resistance Comparative Analysis of Milled-Derived vs. 3D-Printed CAD/CAM Materials for Single-Unit Restorations

Cristian Abad-Coronel  1 , Manuel Bravo  1 , Salomé Tello  2 , Emilia Cornejo  2 , Yirelly Paredes  1 , Cesar A Paltan  3 , Jorge I Fajardo  3
Affiliations

Fracture Resistance Comparative Analysis of Milled-Derived vs. 3D-Printed CAD/CAM Materials for Single-Unit Restorations

Cristian Abad-Coronel et al. Polymers (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of a single-unit fixed prosthesis, using a CAD/CAM PMMA material and two printed materials (3DPPa and 3DPPb). A typodont with a specific preparation for a full crown was used; a digital impression was made with a state-of-the-art scanner (PrimeScanTM, Dentsply-SironaTM, New York, NY, USA), and a full coverage restoration was designed using a biogeneric design proposal by means of specific software (InLAB 22.1, Dentsply-Sirona, NY, USA). Sixty crowns were prepared, divided into three groups according to the material: 3DPPa (n = 20), 3DPPb (n = 20), both 3D-printed from the .STL file with a resolution of 50 μm, and PMMA (n = 20) milled-derived, which were subjected to a thermocycling process. A universal testing machine (Universal/Tensile Testing Machine, Autograph AGS-X Series) with integrated software (TRAPEZIUM LITE X) equipped with a 20 kN load cell was used to determine the fracture resistance. Significant differences were found by Kruskal-Wallis test and multiple comparisons (p < 0.05) in fracture resistance between materials. The fracture resistance for the PMMA material was higher, and the standard deviation was lower (x = 1427.9; sd = 36.9 N) compared to the 3DPPa (x = 1231; sd = 380.1 N) and 3DPPb (x = 1029.9; sd = 166.46 N) prints. The restorations from the milled-derived group showed higher average fracture resistance than the provisional restorations obtained from the printed groups. However, the results demonstrated that all three materials analyzed in single-unit restorations are capable of withstanding the average masticatory forces.

Keywords: 3D-printing; CAD/CAM materials; PMMA; fracture resistance; interim restorations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maxillary typodont with preparation for a crown in Section 2.6.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Design of a fixed dental crown using InLAB 20.0, Dentsply-Sirona’s biogeneric mode.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) (From left to right) Metal stump, PMMA, 3DPPb and 3DPPa crowns. (b) Fracture resistance test.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) (From left to right) Metal stump, PMMA, 3DPPb and 3DPPa crowns. (b) Fracture resistance test.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Fractured 3DPPb crown.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Box plot for fracture resistance of 3DPPa, 3DPPb and PMMA. Quartile graph, maximum and minimum values, mean (x) and median (central line).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lambert H., Durand J.-C., Jacquot B., Fages M. Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2017;9:486–495. doi: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.486. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alp G., Murat S., Yilmaz B. Comparison of Flexural Strength of Different CAD/CAM PMMA-Based Polymers. J. Prosthodont. 2018;28:e491–e495. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12755. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lerner H., Nagy K., Pranno N., Zarone F., Admakin O., Mangano F. Trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled-derived monolithic zirconia crowns: An in vitro study. J. Dent. 2021;113:103792. - PubMed
    1. Aneeza H. Additive vs. Subtractive Manufacturing in Dental Laboratory Technology. CUNY Acad. Works. 2021;1:1–2.
    1. Beuer F., Schweiger J., Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br. Dent. J. 2008;204:505–511. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources