Original Article |
|
Corresponding author: Mariya Dimitrova ( maria.dimitrova@mu-plovdiv.bg ) Corresponding author: Bozhana Chuchulska ( bozhana.chuchulska@mu-plovdiv.bg ) © 2024 Mariya Dimitrova, Angelina Vlahova, Raycho Raychev, Bozhana Chuchulska, Rada Kazakova.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Dimitrova M, Vlahova A, Raychev R, Chuchulska B, Kazakova R (2024) A 3D-simulation study of the deformation, tension, and stress of 3D-printed and conventional denture base materials after immersion in artificial saliva. Folia Medica 66(1): 104-113. https://doi.org/10.3897/folmed.66.e118377
|
Introduction: The worldwide application of digital technology has presented dentistry with transformative opportunities. The concept of digital dentures, incorporating computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques, holds the promise of improved precision, customization, and overall patient satisfaction. However, the shift from traditional dentures to their digital counterparts should not be taken lightly, as the intricate interplay between oral physiology, patient comfort, and long-term durability requires thorough examination.
Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the dimensional changes of 3D printed (NextDent, 3D Systems, The Netherlands) and conventional heat-cured (Vertex BasiQ 20, 3D Systems, The Netherlands) denture base resin after immersion in artificial saliva for different periods (7, 14, and 30 days) and then applying 3D simulated deformation, tensional strength, and stress, using the ANSYS software (ANSYS Inc., Pennsylvania, USA).
Materials and methods: For the manufacturing of the test specimens, an STL file was created, using the Free CAD Version 0.19 (Free CAD, Stuttgart, Germany). The dimensions of each specimen were 20 mm in width, 20 mm in length, and 3 mm in thickness. Two hundred experimental bodies were created and divided into two groups (n=100), with half fabricated using a 3D printer (NextDent 5100, NextDent, 3D Systems, The Netherlands) and the other half prepared using the traditional method of heat-curing polymerization in metal flasks. The test samples were then weighed using an analytical balance, immersed in artificial saliva for three periods (7, 14, and 30 days), and reweighed after water absorption. After desiccation at 37°C for 24 hours and then at 23±1°C for 1 hour, the samples were weighed again. Then the data were entered into the specialized program ANSYS and the 3D simulation tests for deformation, tension, and stress were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 0.26 statistical software, which includes descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA analysis.
Results: The findings weren’t statistically significant and indicated that the average metrics for the 3D-printed experimental test samples were marginally greater than those recorded for the conventional samples.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it is possible to conclude that 3D-printed resin has a lower capacity to withstand deformation, tension, and stress under simulated conditions than conventional dental resin. However, they do not exceed the values accepted by the ISO standard for clinical application of this type of material.
3D-printing, 3D simulation, CAD/CAM, denture base material, digital dentures
AS : artificial saliva
CAD/CAM: computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
ISO : International Organization of Standardization
PMMA : polymethyl methacrylate
STL : stereolithography, standard triangle language, standard tessellation language
3D : three dimensional
The increasingly popular CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) methods save a lot of effort and provide greater comfort for the patient.[
Dental resins for removable dentures must be resistant to volume changes under all conditions and not change their dimensions over time. Volumetric changes are expressed in polymerization shrinkage, which is compensated by the significant water sorption of this type of material.[
Alternating processes of imbibition and drying of acrylics lead to internal stresses and fatigue. As a result, dental resins undergo significant dimensional changes. The water diffuses into the dental resin and inflicts a gradual expansion and volume increase, which may cause aging of the material and discomfort during masticatory function.[
The mechanical characteristics of PMMA resins for the fabrication of partial and complete removable dentures include satisfactory tensile strength (48-62 mPa) and compressive strength (75 mPa).[
A simulation represents an imitation of a system of a specific type of process over time. Simulations require the use of artificial models that represent the main characteristics of the selected process, and they are usually computer-based.[
Nowadays, there are various software programs for 3D simulations. The specialized program ANSYS is a software package, whose purpose is to solve practical problems in various engineering fields.[
The aim of the current study was to investigate and compare the changes occurring in two types of denture base materials before and after immersion in artificial saliva, subjected to deformation, tension, and stress under 3D-simulated conditions.
Two groups of experimental bodies (n=35) were manufactured using two types of dental resin for removable dentures – 3D-printed resin NextDent (NextDent, 3D Systems, The Netherlands) and PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) resin Vertex BasiQ 20 (Vertex, 3D Systems, The Netherlands). The test specimens were prepared in rectangular shape with dimensions of 20×20×3 mm, applying two manufacturing methods – conventional heat-curing polymerization and 3D printing. The shape and size of the test sample were designed with Free CAD Version 0.19 and exported as an STL file. The first group of experimental bodies was fabricated using the process of 3D printing, layer by layer, in a specialized NextDent 3D printer (NextDent 5100, 3D Systems, The Netherlands). The second group was prepared using the conventional method of heat-curing polymerization in special metal flasks (Fig.
After the specimens were fabricated, their weight was measured and then they were immersed for three periods (7 days, 14 days, and 30 days) in artificial saliva, which was prepared by a chemist in the Department of Chemistry, Medical College of Plovdiv, Medical University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. After every immersion, the bodies were weighed and dried in the desiccator (Fig.
3D-simulation methods of uniaxial post-deformation loading and bending moment loading were applied to the test specimens, comparing the MPa loading rates of their water sorption for the three time periods. A magnitude force of 700 N was chosen to reproduce the maximum force during normal masticatory function. We compared the results obtained for the two groups of experimental bodies (n=35), with a control group and three immersion periods in artificial saliva (before immersion in artificial saliva – control group, after 7 days, after 14 days, after 1 month). Fig.
The specialized software program ANSYS (Pennsylvania, USA) allows visualization of the processes through 3D illustrations. The engineering simulation software is designed to enable users to analyze the behavior of test objects when subjected to various physical factors simultaneously.
For our research, the tenth version of the product, ANSYS, Inc. was used, which offers a new Workbench platform. It implements a modern graphical interface and allows us to efficiently manage individual modules and products related to the software. For geometric modeling, the new Design Modeler module, implemented based on the Parasolid core, is built into this platform. The Mechanical simulation module provides the user with the necessary modeling tools. With Workbench, almost the entire ANSYS software suite can be combined with powerful CAD systems, such as SolidWorks, Unigraphics, Inventor, and others, in a single design and calculation environment.
In ANSYS Workbench, the mesh density can be changed. For this purpose, the network density factor (Relevance) can be selected. The Preview Surface Mesh command can be used to preview mesh modifications. In the Statistics section, information about the number of generated nodes and elements can be obtained.
H0 – the null hypothesis states that there would be no changes in the tested values of the selected two groups of materials.
H1 – the alternative hypothesis proposes that there will be a significant change in the investigated values of the tested specimens.
The results obtained from the 3D simulation studies were analyzed and processed using the statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics Version 0.26, which included descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA.
Based on the conducted 3D-simulation research on the experimental bodies placed under different conditions: deformation, tension, and stress, respectively for the initial phase after drying, before immersion, and after staying in artificial saliva for 1 month, we performed statistical processing of the data using descriptive analysis and one-way ANOVA analysis (Table
The results of the one-way ANOVA statistical method showed that the standard deviation for Vertex BasiQ 20 was slightly larger but given the upper and lower limits found for the applied strain in both types of materials and the average values, no significant differences were observed. The value for P is greater than 0.05, therefore, the differences in deformation at an applied pressure equal to a force equal to 700 N are not significant.
In the one-way ANOVA, as expected, the differences between the two types of materials were not significant (Table
During the stress test in the initial phase, almost equal average values were obtained, establishing a visible but not particularly large difference in the standard of inclination (Tables
In the case of deformation on experimental samples that have been in artificial saliva for 1-month, significant differences in the average values, small differences in the standard deviation, and visibly different upper and lower limits are found according to the type of material (Tables
ANOVA analysis confirmed statistically significant differences in the studied material groups, with the P-value being much less than 0.01. Fig.
Fig.
The means are almost identical, with a slightly larger difference in the standard deviation. The established upper and lower limits are also almost equal (Tables
Fig.
The mean and standard deviation have minimal differences, with close lower and upper limits. The P-value was greater than 0.05, and ANOVA analysis confirmed that differences between materials were not significant in this case (Tables
As a result of the ANOVA analysis, the following results were obtained – there is a difference between the two types of materials in the case where they were kept for 1 month in artificial saliva and a point pressure was applied to them, with a force equal to 1500 N (Fig.
Descriptive analysis - deformation of experimental bodies in the initial phase after drying (F=700 N)
| Descriptive Analysis | ||||||||
| Deformation test – the initial stage | ||||||||
| N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower border | Upper border | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 1.28023 | 0.152308 | 0.025745 | 1.22791 | 1.33255 | 1.035 | 1.703 |
| Vertex | 35 | 1.24900 | 0.280732 | 0.047452 | 1.15257 | 1.34543 | 0.879 | 2.087 |
| Total | 70 | 1.26461 | 0.224749 | 0.026863 | 1.21102 | 1.31820 | 0.879 | 2.087 |
One-way ANOVA analysis - deformation of experimental bodies in the initial phase after drying
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Deformation test – the initial stage | |||||
| Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Sum of the mean value | F | P | |
| Between groups | 0.017 | 1 | 0.017 | 0.335 | 0.565 |
| In the groups | 3.468 | 68 | 0.051 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 3.485 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Descriptive analysis - tension in experimental bodies in the initial phase after drying (F = 700 N)
| Descriptive analysis | ||||||||
| Tension test – initial stage | ||||||||
| N | Mean Value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence Interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower border | Upper border | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 195.60229 | 2.767151 | 0.467734 | 194.65174 | 196.55284 | 191.230 | 201.680 |
| Vertex | 35 | 195.34183 | 3.036428 | 0.513250 | 194.29878 | 196.38488 | 190.294 | 200.758 |
| Total | 70 | 195.47206 | 2.886766 | 0.345035 | 194.78373 | 196.16038 | 190.294 | 201.680 |
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Tension test – initial stage | |||||
| Sum of squares | Standard deviation | Sum of squared mean | F | P | |
| Between groups | 1.187 | 1 | 1.187 | 0.141 | 0.709 |
| In the groups | 573.819 | 68 | 8.439 | ||
| Total | 575.006 | 69 | |||
Descriptive analysis – stress test on experimental bodies in the initial stage after drying (F = 700 N)
| Descriptive analysis | ||||||||
| Stress test – initial stage | ||||||||
| N | Mean Value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower border | Upper border | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 195.60229 | 2.767151 | 0.467734 | 194.65174 | 196.55284 | 191.230 | 201.680 |
| Vertex | 35 | 195.34183 | 3.036428 | 0.513250 | 194.29878 | 196.38488 | 190.294 | 200.758 |
| Total | 70 | 195.47206 | 2.886766 | 0.345035 | 194.78373 | 196.16038 | 190.294 | 201.680 |
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Stress test – initial stage | |||||
| Sum of squares | Standard deviation | Sum of squared mean | F | P | |
| Between groups | 1.156 | 1 | 1.197 | 0.141 | 0.709 |
| In the groups | 533.819 | 67 | 8.238 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 535.006 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Descriptive analysis - deformation on experimental bodies, after staying in artificial saliva for 1 month (F=700 N)
| Descriptive Analysis | ||||||||
| Deformation test – after 1 month | ||||||||
| N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower border | Upper border | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 0.79517 | 0.101972 | 0.017236 | 0.76014 | 0.83020 | 0.568 | 0.987 |
| Vertex | 35 | 0.52346 | 0.074660 | 0.012620 | 0.49781 | 0.54910 | 0.401 | 0.646 |
| Total | 70 | 0.65931 | 0.163080 | 0.019492 | 0.62043 | 0.69820 | 0.401 | 0.987 |
One–way ANOVA – deformation on experimental bodies, after staying for 1 month in artificial saliva
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Deformation test – after 1 month | |||||
| Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Square of the mean value | F | P | |
| Between groups | 1.292 | 1 | 1.292 | 161.778 | 0.000 |
| In the groups | 0.543 | 68 | 0.008 | ||
| Total | 1.835 | 69 | |||
Descriptive analysis - tension on experimental bodies, after a 1-month stay in artificial saliva (F=700 N)
| Descriptive Analysis | ||||||||
| Tension test – after 1 month | ||||||||
| N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence Interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower border | Upper border | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 195.15057 | 2.464755 | 0.416620 | 194.30390 | 195.99724 | 190.720 | 199.100 |
| Vertex | 35 | 195.24720 | 1.716056 | 0.290066 | 194.65771 | 195.83669 | 192.040 | 197.813 |
| Total | 70 | 195.19889 | 2.108777 | 0.252047 | 194.69607 | 195.70171 | 190.720 | 199.100 |
One-way ANOVA – tension on experimental bodies, after staying 1 month in artificial saliva
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Tension test – after 1 month | |||||
| Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Sum of mean value | F | P | |
| Between groups | 0.163 | 1 | 0.163 | 0.036 | 0.850 |
| In the groups | 306.675 | 68 | 4.510 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 306.839 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Descriptive analysis - stress on experimental bodies after staying for 1 month in artificial saliva
| Descriptive analysis | ||||||||
| Stress test – after 1 month | ||||||||
| N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error | 95% Confidence Interval | Min | Max | ||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| NextDent | 35 | 41.0367896 | 3.98656755 | 0.67385291 | 39.6673557 | 42.4062235 | 31.71337 | 48.22439 |
| Vertex | 35 | 29.5999714 | 3.42393914 | 0.57875135 | 28.4238072 | 30.7761357 | 23.87100 | 35.02100 |
| Total | 70 | 35.3183805 | 6.83973991 | 0.81750528 | 33.6875021 | 36.9492589 | 23.87100 | 48.22439 |
One-Way ANOVA - stress on experimental bodies after staying for 1 month in artificial saliva
| One-way ANOVA | |||||
| Stress test – after 1 month | |||||
| Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Sum of mean value | F | P | |
| Between groups | 2289.014 | 1 | 2289.014 | 165.774 | <0.01 |
| In the groups | 938.947 | 68 | 13.808 | ||
| Total | 3227.961 | 69 | |||
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the dimensional changes of two types of denture base materials, immersed in artificial saliva for different periods, after applying 3D simulated tests for deformation, tension, and stress. The results from the conducted experiments support the null hypothesis – there is no statistically significant difference between the tested samples.
The documented nominal values for deformation, tension, and stress not only align with the findings reported in existing literature[
Prpić et al.[
Gad et al.[
Consistent with the findings of Altarazi et al.[
The findings in the studies by Aati et al.[
The exploration into the laboratory protocol modifications for polyamide prosthetic base materials[
A 3D-simulation study was conducted on two groups of test specimens, and subsequent data processing allows us to draw the following conclusions: the 3D deformation simulations revealed that thermosetting acrylics, which had been immersed in artificial saliva for one month, exhibited a slightly higher resistance. The reported values for both types of dental resin meet acceptable standards for their use in the production of removable dentures, affirming the satisfactory mechanical properties of 3D-printed dental resin. In the bending moment stress simulation study, the average values for the experimental 3D-printed test samples were slightly higher than those recorded for the conventional counterparts. However, these values remain within the limits set by ISO standards for the clinical application of this material.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Conceptualization: M.D.; methodology: M.D., R.R., and A.V.; software: R.R. and A.V.; validation: R.R. and B.C.; formal analysis: R.R. and B.C.; investigation: R.R. and M.D.; resources: M.D. and R.K.; data curation: B.C. and R.K.; writing the original draft preparation: M.D.; writing the review and editing: A.V.; visualization: M.D.; supervision: A.V. and R.R.; project administration: B.C.; funding acquisition: R.K.
The authors have no support to report.
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.