PurposeTo evaluate and compare the mechanical properties (flexural strength and surface hardness) of different materials and technologies for denture base fabrication. The study emphasized the digital technologies of computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and three‐dimensional (3D) printing.Materials and MethodsA total of 160 rectangular specimens were fabricated from three conventional heat‐polymerized (ProBase Hot, Paladon 65, and Interacryl Hot), three CAD/CAM produced (IvoBase CAD, Interdent CC disc PMMA, and Polident CAD/CAM disc), one 3D‐printed (NextDent Base), and one polyamide material (Vertex ThermoSens) for denture base fabrication. The flexural strength test was the three‐point flexure test, while hardness testing was conducted using the Brinell method. The data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics (α = 0.05).ResultsDuring flexural testing, the IvoBase CAD and Vertex ThermoSens specimens did not fracture during loading. The flexural strength values of the other groups ranged from 71.7 ± 7.4 MPa to 111.9 ± 4.3 MPa. The surface hardness values ranged from 67.13 ± 10.64 MPa to 145.66 ± 2.22 MPa. There were significant differences between the tested materials for both flexural strength and surface hardness. There were also differences between some materials with the same polymerization type. CAD/CAM and polyamide materials had the highest flexural strength values. Two groups of CAD/CAM materials had the highest surface hardness values, while a third, along with the polyamide material, had the lowest. The 3D‐printed materials had the lowest flexural strength values.ConclusionsGenerally, CAD/CAM materials show better mechanical properties than heat‐polymerized and 3D‐printed acrylics do. Nevertheless, a material's polymerization type is no guarantee of its optimal mechanical properties.

The aim of this study was to develop a three-dimensional (3D) finite element model (FEM) of the first maxillary premolar in order to compare the stress profiles in the buccal and palatal cervical regions. The 3D geometry of the tooth was reconstructed, the solid model was transferred into a finite element program where a 3D mesh was created, and the stress distribution analysis was performed. Two typical cases have been considered: the tooth under normal occlusion (case I) and the tooth under malocclusion (case II). In case I, larger compressive stresses were found in the cervical enamel and dentine. Tensile stresses were found in the fissure system, adjacent area, and at the vestibular surface of the buccal cusp. The peak values for the principal stress ranged from -259 to +2.25 MPa in the cervical areas. In the case II, larger compressive stresses were found in the palato-cervical enamel and dentine. Tensile stresses were found inside the enamel in the fissure system, adjacent area, at the vestibular surface of the buccal cusp, and in the bucco-cervical enamel. The peak values for the principal stress ranged from -501.947 MPa in palatal region to +82.4 MPa in the buccal region This study implies a role of occlusal forces in development of non-carious lesions. In the case of malocclusion, tensile stresses generated on the cervical areas were higher compared with the stresses generated in the case of normal occlusion and it is probably capable of producing non-carious cervical lesion.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract