A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques DOI Creative Commons
Dimitrios Pallis, Aspasia Pachiou,

Maria Dimitriadi

et al.

Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: April 28, 2025

ABSTRACT Objective To compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D‐printing), subtractive (milling), conventional techniques. Materials Methods Three material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D‐printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD‐Temp, (milled/ML), (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self‐cured/CC). Each group consisted 20 beam‐shaped specimens (25 × 2 mm) a three‐point flexural strength test 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: roughness, gloss, degree conversion, hardness measurements. Data analyzed using one‐way ANOVA Holm‐Sidak multiple comparison tests ( α = 0.05). Results The ranking statistically significant differences p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), (gloss) 3DP> CC (gloss, strength). Clinical Significance tested showed in all properties. These may affect their clinical performance should be taken into consideration application.

Language: Английский

A Comparative In Vitro Study of Materials for Provisional Restorations Manufactured With Additive (3Dprinting), Subtractive (Milling), and Conventional Techniques DOI Creative Commons
Dimitrios Pallis, Aspasia Pachiou,

Maria Dimitriadi

et al.

Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: April 28, 2025

ABSTRACT Objective To compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D‐printing), subtractive (milling), conventional techniques. Materials Methods Three material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D‐printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD‐Temp, (milled/ML), (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self‐cured/CC). Each group consisted 20 beam‐shaped specimens (25 × 2 mm) a three‐point flexural strength test 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: roughness, gloss, degree conversion, hardness measurements. Data analyzed using one‐way ANOVA Holm‐Sidak multiple comparison tests ( α = 0.05). Results The ranking statistically significant differences p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), (gloss) 3DP> CC (gloss, strength). Clinical Significance tested showed in all properties. These may affect their clinical performance should be taken into consideration application.

Language: Английский

Citations

0