摘要
目的：本研究的目的是比较传统椅位调配、3D打印和铣削临时固定义齿在使用两种不同粘接剂前后的体外变化和性能。
材料与方法：使用传统调配（1x）、铣削（1x）和3D打印（2x）材料制造相同的三单位固定义齿（FDP），并使用传统或树脂粘接剂将其粘接到标准化的Co-Cr-Mo合金磨牙上。每组十个FDP储存在蒸馏水中，并通过热循环（TCML）人工老化，模拟5年的磨损期（1.2 × 10^6次循环，50 N力）。每组另外十个FDP作为对照组，储存在蒸馏水中而不进行老化。在TCML前后分析抗折强度（α = 0.05）。
结果：存活率：由传统材料和减材材料制成的所有FDP均通过了TCML，而由增材材料制成的FDP未能通过。抗折强度：传统材料的抗折强度值中位数分别为1096 N（24小时水储存，传统粘接）、1117 N（TCML，传统粘接）、1762 N（24小时水储存，粘接剂粘接）和1400 N（TCML粘接剂粘接）。传统材料与增材材料之间存在显著差异，但减材材料之间没有显著差异。减材材料的抗折强度值中位数分别为988 N（24小时水储存，传统粘接）、1065 N（TCML，传统粘接）、1486 N（24小时水储存，粘接剂粘接）和1204 N（TCML粘接剂粘接）。减材材料与增材材料之间发现了显著差异。增材材料的抗折强度值中位数分别为953 N和754 N（24小时水储存，传统粘接）、1090 N和876 N（24小时水储存，粘接剂粘接）以及706 N和373 N（TCML粘接剂粘接），显示出它们之间以及与其它材料之间的显著差异。
结论：传统制造和减材制造的临时修复体在抗折强度方面未显示出显著差异，尽管它们的性能优于增材制造的临时修复体，后者表现出显著较低的抗折强度。由于当使用Temp Bond NE粘接时，测试的所有增材制造标本均未通过TCML，预计这些材料在临床使用中会发生早期失效。
临床相关性：本研究告知临床医生关于椅位、铣削和3D打印临时固定义齿在不同粘接剂下的抗折强度，有助于材料选择，以提高临床实践中临时修复体的耐用性和可预测性。
原文摘要
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare in-vitro changes and properties of conventional chairside-dispensed, 3D-printed and milled interim fixed dental protheses using two different cements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Identical three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were fabricated from conventional dispensed (1x), milled (1x) and 3D-printed (2x) materials and cemented onto standardized Co-Cr-Mo alloy molars using either conventional or resin cement. Ten FDPs of each group were stored in distilled water and artificially aged for a simulated wear period of 5 years (1.2 × 106 cycles, 50 N force) through thermocycling (TCML). An additional ten FDPs of each group served as the control group, stored in distilled water without aging. Fracture resistance was analyzed before and after TCML (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: Survival rates: All FDPs made from conventional and subtractive materials survived TCML, while those made from additive materials did not. Fracture resistance: The median of the fracture resistance values for conventional material was 1096 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1117 N (TCML, conventional cementation), 1762 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 1400 N (TCML adhesive cementation). Significant differences were observed between conventional and additive materials, but not for the subtractive material. The median of the fracture resistance values for subtractive material was 988 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1065 N (TCML, conventional cementation), 1486 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 1204 N (TCML adhesive cementation). Significant differences were found between subtractive and additive materials. The median of the fracture resistance values of the additive materials was 953 N and 754 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1090 N and 876 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 706 N and 373 N (TCML adhesive cementation), showing significant differences both among them and compared to the other materials.
CONCLUSION: Conventionally and subtractively fabricated temporaries do not show significant differences in fracture resistance, although they do outperform additively fabricated temporaries, which exhibit significantly lower fracture resistance. Since none of the tested additively manufactured specimens survived TCML when cemented with Temp Bond NE, premature failure of these materials can be expected in clinical use.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study informs clinicians on the fracture resistance of chairside, milled, and 3D-printed provisional FDPs with different cements, aiding material selection to improve durability and predictability of provisional restorations in clinical practice.
出处
Clinical oral investigations 2026;30(8). DOI: 10.1007/s00784-026-07011-6.
本页仅收录摘要与出处，不存储全文（合规要求）。