Page 271 - IJB-10-5

International Journal of Bioprinting A TPMS framework for complete dentures

these parameter settings, the deformation and stress
distribution are calculated.

2.2.2. Functionally graded TPMS framework
According to pertinent literature, teeth are primarily
43
subjected to axial occlusal forces during mastication, with
variations among different teeth, as detailed in Table 4.
Finite element methods were employed to simulate the
stress distribution of functionally graded porous IFCDs
under actual chewing conditions, compared with hollow
IFCDs of equivalent mass (Figure 5B), with boundary
conditions as depicted in Figure 6B and C.
2.3. Sample fabrication and experimental testing
2.3.1. TPMS-based gradient porous structures
Owing to the extensive number of samples, we selected
five specific architectures for further analysis, comprising
the mechanically superior construct B-I as indicated
by FEA, a homogeneous control (C-III), and three
additional samples with varying gradients: constant
relative density with cell size gradient (C-II), constant
cell size with relative density gradient (A-III), and a
gradient opposite to the mechanically optimal sample
(A-II). These structures were manufactured using an SLM
printer (SLM 280; Nikon SLM Solutions AG, Germany).
For each structure type, three samples were printed.
The titanium alloy Ti6Al4V, with spherical morphology
and particle size range of 15–45 μm, was used to build
the samples. To ensure the quality of the manufactured
Figure 6. Configuration of boundary conditions for the (A) compression samples, we employed the default parameters provided
test model, (B) functionally graded porous three-periodic minimal by the printer manufacturer for printing Ti6Al4V. The
surface (TPMS) framework, and (C) hollow implant-supported fixed SLM processing parameters were optimized and are
complete dentures (IFCDs). Abbreviation: U , displacement in the summarized in Table 5.
z
negative direction of the Z-axis.

Table 4. Amount of force exerted on different teeth during the chewing process
Teeth Second Frist Second premolars Frist Canines Lateral Central incisor
molars molars (F ) premolars (F ) incisor (F )
3
5
7
(F (F ) (F ) (F )
1) 2 4 6
Power (N) 483 483 367 280 215 137 130
Teeth Power (N)
Second molars (F1) 483
First Molars (F2) 483
Second premolars (F3) 367
First premolars (F4) 280
Canines (F5) 215
Lateral incisors (F6) 137
Central incisors (F7) 130

Volume 10 Issue 5 (2024) 263 doi: 10.36922/ijb.3453