Page 270 - IJB-10-5

International Journal of Bioprinting A TPMS framework for complete dentures

Figure 5. The design process of porous implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) and hollow IFCDs. (A) Schematic diagram of the filled IFCDs
framework. (B) Schematic diagram of the hollow-processed IFCD. Abbreviation: FEA, finite element analysis.

Moreover, we also designed a hollow framework resulting in a 10% strain on the structure. The compression
with the same mass as the functionally graded TPMS boundary conditions are illustrated in Figure 6A. The
framework for comparative analysis. A hollow framework material model adopted an elastoplastic model, with
with the same volume as the functionally graded TPMS titanium alloy Ti6Al4V as the defined material. The
framework can be obtained using the void function in environmental temperature was set to 20°C, and the mesh
modeling software. The two structures, made from the size was set to 0.2 mm. This mesh size produced reliable
same material, have the same mass, and the final result is results and enhanced computational efficiency. With
42
displayed in Figure 5B.
2.2. Finite element analysis Table 3. True stress–strain values of the Ti6Al4V material
To predict and compare the mechanical performance of nine True
TPMS-based gradient porous models, FEA was conducted stress 944 973 996 1015 1029 1040 1047 1054
on the models using commercial software (ANSYS, United (MPa)
States of America [USA]). Models were assigned the Plastic
material properties of Ti6Al4V, considering both elastic and strain 0 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.016 0.02 0.025 0.03
plastic deformation stages in real experimental processes.
In the linear stage, the elastic modulus of the titanium alloy True stress (MPa) Plastic strain
varies under different conditions, fluctuating between 108 944 0
and 117 GPa. Due to this small fluctuation range, this 973 0.002
40
study sets the material’s elastic modulus to 110 GPa and
defines the Poisson’s ratio as 0.3. In the nonlinear phase, 996 0.007
the true stress–strain values of the material are taken into 1015 0.011
account, as presented in Table 3. 1029 0.016
41
1040 0.02
2.2.1. TPMS-based gradient porous structures
Prior to the analysis, the bottom of the model was fully 1047 0.025
fixed, and a displacement load was applied to the top, 1054 0.03

Volume 10 Issue 5 (2024) 262 doi: 10.36922/ijb.3453