| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Mikulewicz, Marcin
Wroclaw Medical University
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (10/10 displayed)
- 2023Influence of Storing Composite Filling Materials in a Low-pH Artificial Saliva on Their Mechanical Properties—An In Vitro Studycitations
- 2023Correlation between friction and wear in cylindrical anchorages simulated with wear machine and analyzed with scanning probe and electron microscope
- 2023Comparative analysis of fused deposition modeling and digital light processing techniques for dimensional accuracy in clear aligner manufacturingcitations
- 2023Influence of storing composite filling materials in a low-pH artificial saliva on their mechanical properties— an in vitro studycitations
- 2023Comparison of the tensile modulus of three 3D-printable materials used in dentistry
- 2023Mechanical properties and biocompatibility of 3D printing acrylic material with bioactive componentscitations
- 2023The influence of polishing and artificial aging on BioMed Amber® resin’s mechanical propertiescitations
- 2023Multifunctional cellulose-based biomaterials for dental applications: a sustainable approach to oral health and regenerationcitations
- 2022Comparison of the compression and tensile modulus of two chosen resins used in dentistry for 3D printingcitations
- 2018Comparative assessment of the corrosion process of orthodontic archwires made of stainless steel, titanium–molybdenum and nickel–titanium alloyscitations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Comparison of the tensile modulus of three 3D-printable materials used in dentistry
Abstract
Background. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has brought much innovation to medicine and has been successfully adopted in many areas of dentistry. Although 3D printing techniques are being increasingly used, their advantages and disadvantages still need to be investigated, particularly with regard to the materials used in dentistry. Dental materials should be biocompatible and non-cytotoxic, and have sufficient mechanical integrity in the oral environment in which they are intended for use.Objectives. The present work aimed to identify and compare the mechanical properties of three 3D-printable resins. The materials included IBT Resin, BioMed Amber Resin and Dental LT Clear Resin. The Formlabs Form 2 printer was used.Material and methods. A tensile strength test was performed on 10 specimens of each resin. Tensile modulus was measured on 2-millimeter-thick dumbbell-shaped specimens, 75 mm in length and 10 mm in width. The 10 specimens of each resin were mounted between the grips of a universal testing machine (Z10-X700).Results. The results showed that BioMed Amber specimens cracked easily, yet no deformation was observed. The amount of force used to test the tensility of the specimens was the lowest for IBT Resin, while it was the highest for Dental LT Clear Resin.Conclusions. IBT Resin was the weakest material, whereas Dental Clear LT Resin was the strongest.