A study of biocomposite resins for creating orthodontic appliances using a 3D printer. Issue 3 (September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kakami, Chifumi; Nakano, Haruhisa; Hotta, Yasuhiro; Miyazaki, Takashi; Maki, Koutaro
• Is Part Of: Orthodontic waves. Volume 76:Issue 3(2017:Sep.)
• Page Start: 140
• Page End: 150
• Publication Date: 2017-09
• Subjects: Cleft lip and cleft palate -- Hotz plate -- 3D printer -- Biocompatible resin material -- Bisphenol A; Orthodontics -- Periodicals; Orthodontics -- Periodicals; Orthodontie -- Périodiques; Orthodontie; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 617.643
• DOI: 10.1016/j.odw.2017.04.002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1344-0241

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: This study is to investigate the physical and mechanical properties of various biocomposite resins used with 3D printer for fabrication of orthodontic appliances used for cleft lip and palate patients and compare the results to the properties of self-curing resin used orthodontic appliances. Material and methods: Density, flexural strength, elastic modulus, hardness, and water absorption and solubility dimensional change ratio, were performed on each sample of the biocomposite resins used in this study and the self-curing resin. For self-curing resin and the other samples, the difference in the average values were tested to determine whether there were significant differences in the average values. Result: The results of the study showed that a photocurable resin: The elastic modulus and flexural strength were low. The hardness was equivalent. A Polyjet photopolymer: After water absorption, the flexural strength and elastic modulus were significantly lowered. The hardness was equivalent. Acrylic-type biocomposite resin (ABR): The elastic modulus and flexural strength were significantly lower. Furthermore, the amounts of water absorption and solubility were extremely large. When the material dried after water absorption, cracking occurred. Epoxy-type biocomposite resin (EBR): There were no significant differences in the elastic modulus and flexural strength. Hardness was equivalent. EBR showed strength greater than ABR. Conclusion: The domestically produced prototype EBR tested in this study showed greater strength than ABR and did not contain toxic substances such as Bisphenol A. This suggests that it has a potential to be used as a photocurable resin in the field of dentistry in future.