The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Effect of Build Orientation on Mechanical and Physical Properties of Additively Manufactured Resins Using Digital Light Processing Technology in Dentistry: A Systematic Review

Sujatha Paranna, Nilima Thosar, Aditi Kanitkar

Keywords : 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Crowns, Dental materials, Denture design, Orientation

Citation Information : Paranna S, Thosar N, Kanitkar A. Effect of Build Orientation on Mechanical and Physical Properties of Additively Manufactured Resins Using Digital Light Processing Technology in Dentistry: A Systematic Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (9):891-903.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3759

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of build orientation on the mechanical and physical properties of additively manufactured resin using digital light processing (DLP). Background: The properties of 3D-printed materials are influenced by various factors, including the type of additive manufacturing (AM) system and build orientation. There is a scarcity of literature on the effect of build orientation on the mechanical and physical properties of additively manufactured resins using DLP technology in dentistry. Methods: This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was “What is the effect of build orientation on the mechanical and physical properties of additively manufactured resins produced using DLP in dentistry.” The search strategy used three main electronic databases and an additional manual search was done until February 2024. All the studies that evaluated the correlation of build orientation and the properties of printed resin using DLP were included. Two different analysis was used for in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the risk of bias. Review results: On search 237 studies were yielded for systematic review, out of which 13 studies were included for the systematic review evaluation. On evaluation and reviewing the included studies, though the build orientation angle influenced the properties of printed resins the results obtained were varied as 90° angle had increased compressive strength, low surface roughness, and best accuracy. The 0° angle had better wear resistance, tensile strength, and high flexural strength. There was no influence of build orientation on microhardness, shear bond strength, gloss and color difference. The studies on denture base showed that 45° build angle showed the truest with best accuracy. Conclusion: The build orientation angle effects on both the mechanical and physical properties of the additively manufactured resin but varies with each property. The build orientation can be chosen based on the type of properties to be achieved based on the treatment modality. Clinical significance: Based on the systematic review results the specific build orientation angle should be used during fabrication of any denture designs, crowns, and bridges as it is correlated with the properties to be achieved by particular designs.

PDF Share
  1. Mayer J, Stawarczyk B, Vogt K, et al. Influence of cleaning methods after 3D printing on two-body wear and fracture load of resin-based temporary crown and bridge material. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(10):5987–5996. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03905-9.
  2. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):3–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
  3. Kessler A, Reymus M, Hickel R, et al. Three-body wear of 3D printed temporary materials. Dent Mater 2019;35(12):1805–1812. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.005.
  4. Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(4):571–577. PMID: 12939011.
  5. Hazeveld A, Huddleston SJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145(1):108–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011.
  6. Reyes-Sevilla M, Kuijs RH, Werner A, et al. Comparison of wear between occlusal splint materials and resin composite materials. J Oral Rehabil 2018;45(7):539–544. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12636.
  7. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018;34(2):192–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003.
  8. Ligon SC, Liska R, Stampfl J, et al. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev 2017;117(15):10212–10290. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074.
  9. Xiang H, Wang X, Ou Z, et al. UV-curable, 3D printable and biocompatible silicone elastomers. Prog Org Coat 2019;137(1):105372. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.105372.
  10. Chen F, Li R, Sun J, et al. Photo-curing 3D printing robust elastomers with ultralow viscosity resin. J Appl Polym Sci 2021;138(10):49965. DOI: 10.1002/app.49965.
  11. Patel DK, Sakhaei AH, Layani M, et al. Highly stretchable and UV curable elastomers for digital light processing based 3D printing. Adv Mater 2017;29(15). DOI: 10.1002/adma.201606000.
  12. Gad MM, Fouda SM. Factors affecting flexural strength of 3D-printed resins: A systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2023;32(S1):96–110. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13640.
  13. Choi Y, Yoon J, Kim J, et al. Development of bisphenol A glycidylmethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate based stereolithography 3D printing materials. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(23):5198. DOI:10.3390/polym14235198.
  14. Derban P, Negrea R, Rominu M, et al. Influence of the printing angle and load direction on flexure strength in 3D printed materials for provisional dental restorations. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(12):3376. DOI: 10.3390/ma14123376.
  15. Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, et al. A review of 3D printing in dentistry: Technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning 2021. DOI: 10.1155/2021/9950131.
  16. Moradi M, Aminzadeh A, Rahmatabadi D, et al. Experimental investigation on mechanical characterization of 3D printed PLA produced by fused deposition modeling (FDM). Mater Res Express 2021;8(3):035304. DOI: 10.1088/2053-1591/abe8f3.
  17. Moradi M, Aminzadeh A, Rahmatabadi D, et al. Statistical and experimental analysis of process parameters of 3D nylon printed parts by fused deposition modeling: Response surface modeling and optimization. J Mater Eng Perform 2021;30(7):5441–5454. DOI: 10.1007/s11665-021-05848-4.
  18. Osman RB, Alharbi N, Wismeijer D. Build angle: Does it influence the accuracy of 3D-printed dental restorations using digital light-processing technology? Int J Prosthodont 2017;30(2):182–188. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5117.
  19. Park GS, Kim SK, Heo SJ, et al. Effects of printing parameters on the fit of implant-supported 3D printing resin prosthetics. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(16):2533. DOI: 10.3390/ma12162533.
  20. Ryu JE, Kim YL, Kong HJ, et al. Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed provisional crowns according to build directions. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12(4):225–232. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.4.225.
  21. Yu BY, Son K, Lee KB. Evaluation of intaglio surface trueness and margin quality of interim crowns in accordance with the build angle of stereolithography apparatus 3-dimensional printing. J Prosthet Dent 2021;126(2):231–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.028.
  22. de Castro EF, Nima G, Rueggeberg FA, et al. Effect of build orientation in accuracy, flexural modulus, flexural strength, and microhardness of 3D-Printed resins for provisional restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2022;136(1):105479. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105479.
  23. Kebler A, Hickel R, Ilie N. In vitro investigation of the influence of printing direction on the flexural strength, flexural modulus and fractographic analysis of 3D-printed temporary materials. Dent Mater J 2021;40(3):641–649. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2020-147.
  24. Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(6):760–767. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.002.
  25. Khanlar NL, Revilla-León M, Barmak AB, et al. Surface roughness and shear bond strength to composite resin of additively manufactured interim restorative material with different printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(5):788–795. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.010.
  26. Prause E, Hey J, Beuer F, et al. Wear resistance of 3D-printed materials: A systematic review. Dent Rev 2022;2(2):100051. DOI: 10.1016/j.dentre.2022.100051.
  27. Della Bona A, Cantelli V, Britto VT, et al. 3D printing restorative materials using a stereolithographic technique: A systematic review. Dent Mater 2021;37(2):336–350. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.030.
  28. Al-Thobity AM, Gad MM. Effect of silicon dioxide nanoparticles on the flexural strength of heat-polymerized acrylic denture base material: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi Dent J 2021;33(8):775–783. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.08.008.
  29. Viswanathan M, Patnode CD, Berkman ND, et al. Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;97(1):26–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.004.
  30. Sheth VH, Shah NP, Jain R, et al. Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN. J Prosthet Dent 2022:S0022–3913(22)00345-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.05.019.
  31. Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Version 3.0. 2016.
  32. Lee H, Son K, Lee DH, et al. Comparison of wear of interim crowns in accordance with the build angle of digital light processing 3D printing: A preliminary in vivo study. Bioengineering (Basel) 2022;9(9):417. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9090417.
  33. Farkas AZ, Galatanu SV, Nagib R. The influence of printing layer thickness and orientation on the mechanical properties of DLP 3D-printed dental resin. Polymers (Basel) 2023;15(5):1113. DOI: 10.3390/polym15051113.
  34. Alkhateeb RI, Algaoud HS, Aldamanhori RB, et al. Fracture load of 3D-printed interim three-unit fixed dental prostheses: Impact of printing orientation and post-curing time. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15(7):1737. DOI: 10.3390/polym15071737.
  35. de Castro EF, Nima G, Rueggeberg FA, et al. Effect of build orientation in gloss, roughness and color of 3D-printed resins for provisional indirect restorations. Dent Mater 2023;39(7):e1–e11. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.05.002.
  36. Al-Dulaijan YA, Alsulaimi L, Alotaibi R, et al. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of 3D printed resins. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(19):6822. DOI: 10.3390/ma15196822.
  37. Ortega NM, Revilla-León M, Ortega R, et al. Comparison of surface roughness of additively manufactured implant-supported interim crowns fabricated with different print orientations. J Prosthodont 2024;33(2):141–148. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13645.
  38. Al-Dulaijan YA, Alsulaimi L, Alotaibi R, et al. Effect of printing orientation and postcuring time on the flexural strength of 3D-printed resins. J Prosthodont 2023;32(S1):45–52. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13572.
  39. Lee EH, Ahn JS, Lim YJ, et al. Effect of layer thickness and printing orientation on the color stability and stainability of a 3D-printed resin material. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(5):784.e1–784.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.024.
  40. Cameron AB, Evans JL, Abuzar MA, et al. Trueness assessment of additively manufactured maxillary complete denture bases produced at different orientations. J Prosthet Dent 2024;131(1):129–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.025.
  41. Song S, Zhang J, Liu M, et al. Effect of build orientation and layer thickness on manufacturing accuracy, printing time, and material consumption of 3D printed complete denture bases. J Dent 2023;130(1):104435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104435.
  42. Chaiamornsup P, Katheng A, Ha R, et al. Effects of build orientation and bar addition on accuracy of complete denture base fabricated with digital light projection: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2023;67(4):641–646. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00245.
  43. Tiwari A, Murugan NA, Ahuja R. Advanced Engineering Materials and Modeling. Advanced Material Series. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley. 2016; p. 528.
  44. Hanon MM, Ghaly A, Zsidai L, et al. Investigations of the mechanical properties of DLP 3D printed graphene/resin composites. Acta Polytech Hung 2021;18(8):143–161. DOI: 10.12700/APH.18.8.2021.8.8.
  45. Gibson I. Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing. 2nd edition Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 2015; p. 498.
  46. Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 2016;32(1): 54–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.018.
  47. Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: A review of the available streams. Int J Dent 2014;2014:783948. DOI: 10.1155/2014/783948.
  48. Kanazawa M, Inokoshi M, Minakuchi S, et al. Trial of a CAD/CAM system for fabricating complete dentures. Dent Mater J 2011;30(1):93–96. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-112.
  49. Digital Micromirror Device. Available online: http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Digital_micromirror_device.
  50. Nold J, Wesemann C, Rieg L, et al. Does printing orientation matter? In-vitro fracture strength of temporary fixed dental prostheses after a 1-year simulation in the artificial mouth. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(2):259. DOI: 10.3390/ma14020259.
  51. Monzón M, Ortega Z, Hernández A, et al. Anisotropy of photopolymer parts made by digital light processing. Materials (Basel) 2017;10(1):64. DOI: 10.3390/ma10010064.
  52. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049:2019—Dentistry—Polymer-based restorative materials. 5th edition. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. 2019. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/67596.html.
  53. Alharbi N, Osman RB, Wismeijer D. Factors influencing the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed full-coverage dental restorations using stereolithography technology. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29(5):503–510. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4835.
  54. Unkovskiy A, Bui PH, Schille C, et al. Objects build orientation, positioning, and curing influence dimensional accuracy and flexural properties of stereolithographically printed resin. Dent Mater 2018;34(12):e324–e333. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.09.011.
  55. Chaiamornsup P, Iwasaki N, Yasue T, et al. Effects of build conditions and angle acuteness on edge reproducibility of casting patterns fabricated using digital light projection. Dent Mater J 2020;39(1):135–140. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-401.
  56. Vitale A, Cabral JT. Frontal conversion and uniformity in 3D printing by photopolymerisation. Materials (Basel) 2016;9(9):760. DOI: 10.3390/ma9090760.
  57. Revilla-León M, Meyers MJ, Zandinejad A, et al. A review on chemical composition, mechanical properties, and manufacturing work flow of additively manufactured current polymers for interim dental restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31(1):51–57. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12438.
  58. Dizon JRC, Espera AH, Chen Q, et al. Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf 2018;20(1):44–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002.
  59. Ibrahim A, Shehawy DE, El-Naggar G. Fracture resistance of interim restoration constructed by 3D printing versus CAD/CAM technique (in vitro study). Ain Shams Dent J 2020;23(1):13–20. DOI: 10.21608/ASDJ.2020.140010.
  60. Zhou W, Chen D, Shulkin Y, et al. Ductile failure and delayed necking in polyethylene. Plast Fail Anal Prev 2001;2001(1):25–30. DOI: 10.1016/B978-188420792-1.50005-6.
  61. Ye J, André S, Farge L. Kinematic study of necking in a semi-crystalline polymer through 3D Digital Image Correlation. Int J Solids Struct 2015;59(1):58–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.01.009.
  62. Urechescu H, Pricop M, Pricop C, et al. Thermoplastic materials used for fabrication of maxillary obturator prostheses experimental compression and traction tests. Mater Plast 2017;54(3):477–480. DOI: 10.3390/polym15051113.
  63. Oropallo W, Piegl LA. Ten challenges in 3D printing. Eng Comput 2015;32(1):135–148. DOI: 10.1007/s00366-015-0407-0.
  64. Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG. Part deposition orientation studies in layered manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 2007;185(1–3):125–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2006.03.120.
  65. Gad MM, Fouda SM, Abualsaud R, et al. Strength and surface properties of a 3D-printed denture base polymer. J Prosthodont 2022;31(5):412–418. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13413.
  66. Srinivasan M, Kalberer N, Kamnoedboon P, et al. CAD-CAM complete denture resins: An evaluation of biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and surface characteristics. J Dent 2021;114(1):103785. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103785.
  67. Gao H, Yang Z, Lin WS, et al. The effect of build orientation on the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed mandibular complete dentures manufactured with a multijet 3D printer. J Prosthodont 2021;30(8):684–689. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13330.
  68. Jin MC, Yoon HI, Yeo IS, et al. The effect of build angle on the tissue surface adaptation of maxillary and mandibular complete denture bases manufactured by digital light processing. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(3):473–482. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.014.
  69. Tsai FC, Yang TC, Wang TM, et al. Dimensional changes of complete dentures fabricated by milled and printed techniques: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(4):608–615. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.042.
  70. You SG, You SM, Kang SY, et al. Evaluation of the adaptation of complete denture metal bases fabricated with dental CAD-CAM systems: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;125(3):479–485. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.039.
  71. Shim JS, Kim JE, Jeong SH, et al. Printing accuracy, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, and microbial adhesion of 3D-printed resins with various printing orientations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(4):468–475. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.034.
  72. Aati S, Akram Z, Shrestha B, et al. Effect of post-curing light exposure time on the physico-mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of 3D-printed denture base material. Dent Mater 2022;38(1):57–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.011.
  73. Soares IA, Leite PKBDS, Farias OR, et al. Polishing methods’ influence on color stability and roughness of 2 provisional prosthodontic materials. J Prosthodont 2019;28(5):564–571. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13062.
  74. Hamouda IM. Effects of various beverages on hardness, roughness, and solubility of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011;23(5):315–322. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00453.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.