Flexural strength of aged and nonaged interim materials fabricated by using milling, additive manufacturing, and a combination of subtractive and additive methods

Abstract

Statement of problemInterim dental restorations can be fabricated from additively manufactured ingots. However, the flexural strength and surface roughness of restorations fabricated by using this technique are unknown. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of the manufacturing method (milling, additive manufacturing, or a combination of subtractive and additive methods) and accelerating aging on the flexural strength and surface roughness of interim dental materials. Material and methodsA bar design (25×2×2 mm) was used to fabricate the specimens by using 3 methods: milling (M group), additive manufacturing (AM group), and a combination of subtractive and additive methods (AM+M group). In the M group, an interim material (CopraTemp PMMA) was used to fabricate the milled (350i imes-icore) specimens. In the AM group, specimens were fabricated by using a printer (Form3B+) and an interim resin (Temporary CB) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. In the AM+M group, specimens were milled from AM ingots (Temporary CB) and with the same milling machine as in the M group. Two subgroups were created based on the artificial aging (thermocycling): nonaged and aged (n=10). Flexural strength was calculated by using a universal testing machine, followed by determination of the Weibull distribution. Surface roughness was measured by using a digital microscope. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the flexural strength and surface roughness (Ra) data were normally distributed (P>.05). Two-way ANOVA followed by post hoc multiple comparison Tukey tests were used to examine the data (α=.05). The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the surface roughness area data were not normally distributed (P<.05). Therefore, the Kruskal-Wallis followed by pairwise multiple comparisons tests were selected (α=.05). ResultsManufacturing methods (P<.001) and artificial aging (P=.043) were significant factors in the flexural strength measured. The M group had the highest flexural strength mean values (180 MPa), while the AM group showed the lowest flexural strength mean values (77 MPa). Additionally, nonaged specimens (128 MPa) had significantly higher flexural strength values than aged specimens (117 MPa). Manufacturing method (P<.001) was a significant factor in the surface roughness measured. The M group had the highest linear surface roughness mean values (0.86 μm), while the AM group showed the lowest linear surface roughness mean values (0.49 μm). ConclusionsManufacturing method and thermocycling influenced the flexural strength and surface roughness of the groups tested.