| 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 |
|
Weżgowiec, Joanna
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (4/4 displayed)
- 2023Effects of polishing and artificial aging on mechanical properties of dental lt clear® resincitations
- 2023Comparison of the tensile modulus of three 3D-printable materials used in dentistry
- 2023The influence of polishing and artificial aging on BioMed Amber® resin’s mechanical propertiescitations
- 2020Bond strength of modern self-adhesive resin cements to human dentin and different CAD/CAM ceramicscitations
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.