Impact of post printing cleaning methods on geometry, transmission, roughness parameters, and flexural strength of 3D-printed zirconia

• Verfasst von: Liebermann, Anja [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schultheis, A. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Faber, F. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Rammelsberg, Peter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Rues, Stefan [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schwindling, Franz Sebastian [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Impact of post printing cleaning methods on geometry, transmission, roughness parameters, and flexural strength of 3D-printed zirconia
• Verf.angabe: A. Liebermann, A. Schultheis, F. Faber, P. Rammelsberg, S. Rues, F.S. Schwindling
• E-Jahr: 2023
• Jahr: July 2023
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Illustrationen: Illustrationen
• Fussnoten: Online verfügbar: 11. Mai 2023, Artikelversion: 28. Juni 2023 ; Gesehen am 01.08.2023
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Dental materials
• Ort Quelle: Amsterdam : Elsevier, 1985
• Jahr Quelle: 2023
• Band/Heft Quelle: 39(2023), 7 vom: Juli, Seite 625-633
• ISSN Quelle: 1879-0097
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.dental.2023.05.005
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: 3D printing
• Sach-SW: Flexural strength
• Sach-SW: Post printing cleaning
• Sach-SW: Roughness parameter
• Sach-SW: Transmission
• Sach-SW: Zirconia
• K10plus-PPN: 1854052608

Abstract

Objective - To analyze the impact of different post printing cleaning methods on geometry, transmission, roughness parameters, and flexural strength of additively manufactured zirconia. - Methods - Disc-shaped specimens (N = 100) were 3D-printed from 3 mol%-yttria-stabilized zirconia (material: LithaCon 3Y 210; printer: CeraFab 7500, Lithoz) and were cleaned with five different methods (n = 20): (A) 25 s of airbrushing with the dedicated cleaning solution (LithaSol 30®, Lithoz) and 1-week storage in a drying oven (40 °C); (B) 25 s airbrushing (LithaSol 30®) without drying oven; (C) 30 s ultrasonic bath (US) filled with Lithasol30®; (D) 300 s US filled with LithaSol 30®; (E) 30 s US filled with LithaSol 30® followed by 40 s of airbrushing (LithaSol 30®). After cleaning, the samples were sintered. Geometry, transmission, roughness (Ra, Rz), characteristic strengths (σ0), and Weibull moduli (m) were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov-, t-, Kruskal-Wallis-, and Mann-Whitney-U-tests (α < 0.05). - Results - Short US (C) resulted in the thickest and widest samples. Highest transmission was found for US combined with airbrushing (E, p ≤ 0.004), followed by D and B (same range, p = 0.070). Roughness was lowest for US combined with airbrushing (E, p ≤ 0.039), followed by A and B (same range, p = 0.172). A (σ0 = 1030 MPa, m = 8.2), B (σ0 = 1165 MPa, m = 9.8), and E (σ0 = 1146 MPa, m = 8.3) were significantly stronger (p < 0.001) and substantially more reliable than C (σ0 = 480 MPa, m = 1.9) and D (σ0 = 486 MPa, m = 2.1). - Significance - For 3D-printed zirconia, cleaning strategy selection is important. Airbrushing (B) and short US combined with airbrushing (E) were most favorable regarding transmission, roughness, and strength. Ultrasonic cleaning alone was ineffective (short duration) or detrimental (long duration). Strategy E could be particularly promising for hollow or porous structures.