Fracture toughness and hardness of in‐office, 3D‐printed ceramic brackets

Objectives Three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology is a promising manufacturing technique for fabricating ceramic brackets. The aim of this research was to assess fundamental mechanical properties of in‐office, 3D printed ceramic brackets. Materials and Methods 3D‐printed zirconia brackets, comme...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2023-08, Vol.26 (3), p.476-480
Main Authors: Polychronis, Georgios, Papageorgiou, Spyridon N., Riollo, Christopher S., Panayi, Nearchos, Zinelis, Spiros, Eliades, Theodore
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3D printed
Aluminum oxide
Aluminum Oxide - chemistry
ceramic brackets
Ceramics
Crack propagation
fracture toughness
Hardness
Materials Testing
Mechanical properties
Orthodontics
Statistical analysis
Surface Properties
vickers testing
Zirconia
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives Three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology is a promising manufacturing technique for fabricating ceramic brackets. The aim of this research was to assess fundamental mechanical properties of in‐office, 3D printed ceramic brackets. Materials and Methods 3D‐printed zirconia brackets, commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3 M St. Paul, MN) and 3D‐printed customized polycrystalline alumina ceramic ones (LightForce™, Burlington, Massachusetts) were included in this study. Seven 3D printed zirconia brackets and equal number of ceramic ones from each manufacturer underwent metallographic grinding and polishing followed by Vickers indentation testing. Hardness (HV) and fracture toughness (K1c) were estimated by measuring impression average diagonal length and crack length, respectively. After descriptive statistics calculation, group differences were analysed with 1 Way ANOVA and Holm Sidak post hoc multiple comparison test at significance level α = .05. Results Statistically significant differences were found among the materials tested with respect to hardness and fracture toughness. The 3D‐printed zirconia proved to be less hard (1261 ± 39 vs 2000 ± 49 vs 1840 ± 38) but more resistant to crack propagation (K1c = 6.62 ± 0.61 vs 5.30 ± 0.48 vs 4.44 ± 0.30 MPa m1/2) than the alumina brackets (Clarity and Light Force respectivelty). Significant differences were observed between the 3D printed and the commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets but to a lesser extent. Conclusions Under the limitations of this study, the 3D printed zirconia bracket tested is characterized by mechanical properties associated with advantageous orthodontic fixed appliances traits regarding clinically relevant parameters.
ISSN:1601-6335
1601-6343
DOI:10.1111/ocr.12632