Aim: Innovations in CAD/CAM technology and materials science offer new methodologies for removable prosthodontics. As clinical data are still rare, in vitro performance of both CAD/CAM and comparable conventional materials may help to estimate the clinical outcome.
Materials and methods: Specimens (n = 8 per group) from teeth (CediTEC, SR VivodentCAD, Vitapan), base materials (V-Print dentbase, IvoBase CAD, Paladur), adhesives (CediTEC Primer/Adhesive, IvoBase CAD Bond), and a fully printed specimen (Try-In) were created. All specimens underwent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML): 1,200,000 × 50 N; 2x3000 x 5°C/55°C; H2O. Surviving specimens were loaded to fracture. Statistical tests used were the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Kaplan-Meier survival, with the level of significance set to α = 0.05.
Results: Mean loading cycles until failure varied between 100 and 621,667 cycles. Up to five specimens per group failed during TCML. With one exception, all specimens of the entirely CAD/CAM-fabricated group survived TCML. The log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test showed significantly different (P = 0.000) loading cycles between the systems (chi-square test: 28,247; degree of freedom: 8). Failure of the dentures during TCML was characterized by failure of the denture base (2x), denture tooth (13x), mixed base/tooth (3x) or adhesive between base and tooth (1x).
Conclusion: TCML and fracture testing showed different aspects of denture tooth restoration. The results indicated no correlation between fracture force, fracture pattern, and survival cycles. Denture teeth (milled, heat-pressed), bases (milled, printed, pressed), and primer should be matched up to optimize the performance of dentures.
Keywords: 3D printing; FEA; TCML; dentures; milling; rapid prototyping; CAD/CAM.