ABSTRACT
PURPOSE@#The purpose of the study was to assess the influence of build orientations and density of support structures on the trueness of the 3D printed removable partial denture (RPD) frameworks. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#A maxillary Kennedy class III and mandibular class I casts were 3D scanned and used to design and produce two 3D virtual models of RPD frameworks. Using digital light processing (DLP) 3D printing, 47 RPD frameworks were fabricated at 3 different build orientations (100, 135 and 150-degree angles) and 2 support structure densities. All frameworks were scanned and 3D compared to the original virtual RPD models by metrology software to check 3D deviations quantitatively and qualitatively. The accuracy data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA for build orientation comparison and independent sample t-test for structure density comparison at (α = .05). Points study analysis targeting RPD components and representative color maps were also studied. @*RESULTS@#The build orientation of 135-degree angle of the maxillary frameworks showed the lowest deviation at the clasp arms of tooth 26 of the 135-degree angle group. The mandibular frameworks with 150-degree angle build orientation showed the least deviation at the rest on tooth 44 and the arm of the I-bar clasp of tooth 45. No significant difference was seen between different support structure densities. @*CONCLUSION@#Build orientation had an influence on the accuracy of the frameworks, especially at a 135-degree angle of maxillary design and 150-degree of mandibular design. The difference in the support’s density structure revealed no considerable effect on the accuracy.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study was accomplished to assess the biomechanical state of different retaining methods of bar implant-overdenture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two 3D finite element models were designed. The first model included implant overdenture retained by Hader-clip attachment, while the second model included two extracoronal resilient attachment (ERA) studs added distally to Hader splint bar. A non-linear frictional contact type was assumed between overdentures and mucosa to represent sliding and rotational movements among different attachment components. A 200 N was applied at the molar region unilaterally and perpendicular to the occlusal plane. Additionally, the mandible was restrained at their ramus ends. The maximum equivalent stress and strain (von Mises) were recorded and analyzed at the bone-implant interface level. RESULTS: The values of von Mises stress and strain of the first model at bone-implant interface were higher than their counterparts of the second model. Stress concentration and high value of strain were recognized surrounding implant of the unloaded side in both models. CONCLUSION: There were different patterns of stress-strain distribution at bone-implant interface between the studied attachment designs. Hader bar-clip attachment showed better biomechanical behavior than adding ERA studs distal to hader bar.