3D Printed Dental Models A comparative analysis

Țâncu, Ana Maria Cristina; Pantea, Mihaela; Totan, Alexandra; Tănase, Mihaela; Imre, Marina

doi:10.37358/mp.19.1.5121

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Digital technologies including intraoral digital scanners, three-dimensional (3D) model scanners, and cone-beam computed tomography have gained popularity in clinics and labs recently (Hajeer, 2014). Digital impressions taken by intraoral scanners save patients from unpleasant alginate impressions (Burzynski et al, 2018), while also providing orthodontists with an efficient and convenient way to store patient data (hard disk instead of physical space) (Mcguinness & Stephens, 1992;Tancu et al, 2019). However, working without plaster models is not yet regular in the daily practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the fused deposition modeling and the digital light processing techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy of printing dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners

Jaber

Hajeer

Khattab³

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of physical reproductions of plaster orthodontic study casts fabricated by two different rapid prototyping techniques: Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Digital Light Processing (DLP).Materials and methods: Twenty pairs of pretreatment plaster models were prepared from randomly selected patients at the Orthodontic Department, University of Damascus Dental School. Twenty-one reference points were placed on plaster models, followed by scanning and printing of these models using FDM and DLP techniques. Forty measurements were made on these models using a digital caliper. Paired t tests were used to detect significant differences in the measurements between the 3D printed replicas and the original plaster models (Gold Standard). Alpha level was adjusted due to the multiplicity of the tests. Results:The intraclass correlation coefficients for all the comparisons made between the 3D replicas and the gold standard models were greater than 0.80 with ICCs ranging from 0.802 to 0.990 and from 0.853 to 0.990 for the FDM and DLP techniques, respectively. This indicated an excellent agreement. No statistically significant differences could be detected between the 3D-printed models and their corresponding plaster models. The overall mean difference was −0.11 mm and 0.00 ranging from −0.49 to 0.17 mm and from −0.42 to 0.50 mm, for the FDM and DLP techniques, respectively. Conclusion:The accuracy of the 3D models produced by the DLP and FDM techniques was acceptable. However, for the fabrication of clear aligners, the optimum fit of the produced plates in the patients' mouths is not completely guaranteed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the fused deposition modeling and the digital light processing techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy of printing dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners

Jaber

Hajeer

Khattab³

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, according to the results of valuable in vitro [6][7][8][9][10] or in vivo [11][12][13] studies conducted between 2010 and 2018, the idea that fixed prosthetic restorations obtained in digital flow (including intraoral/IO scanning) have a good marginal adaptation, equal to or better than those obtained by extaoral/EO scanning of the impression or of the dental model, is gaining significance. Furthermore, the measurements made on the printed models obtained after the intraoral/IO scanning did not show statistically significant differences when compared with the measurements made on the reference gypsum models, while the measurements made on the printed models obtained after impression scanning showed significant statistical differences when compared with those performed on the gypsum models [14]. Intraoral scanning is performed, however, under conditions that can generate inaccuracies in data aquisition: the presence of saliva can influence the capture of images; limited space for scanner access; tongue and cheek movements during optical impression [1].…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Ender et al (2019) [19], specifies that: "certain current IOS devices are well within the required accuracy required for full-arch scansˮ and -corresponding to partial-arch impressions -"IO scanninig represents a suitable alternative to conventional impression methodsˮ. The intraoral scanning is described by many authors as being able to provide greater accuracy of dental models, compared to the laboratory (extraoral) scanning or to the conventional method of obtaining dental models, represented by conventional oral impression [20,21,22,14]. Sason et al (2018) [20] presented an in vivo study performed on 10 clinically healthy patients, aged 18-45, highlighting that the intraoral scanner offers greater accuracy (precision and trueness) than the extraoral scanner.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study on Two Methods Used in Obtaining 3D Printed Dental Models

Pantea¹,

Ciocoiu²,

Țâncu³

et al. 2019

Mat.Plast.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two 3D printed dental models manufactured after intraoral/IO and extraoral/EO scanning. A dental study model (KaVo Dental GmbH/Germany) was used as a reference for this research; this model was scanned with an industrial scanner (XT H 225 ST/Industrial CT scan/Nikon Metrology Inc./U.S.A.) and a reference STL file was generated (coded M1). Two 3D printed models (Form2/FormLabs Inc./U.S.A.) were produced via IO scanning (TRIOS 3 Battery Cart/3 Shape/Denmark), respectively via EO scanning (Swing Dental Scanner/Dof Inc./South Korea) of the reference dental model. The 3D printed models obtained were scanned with the industrial scanner, resulting in other two STL files (coded M2, respectively M3). All the STL files obtained (reference M1; M2; M3) were compared in pairs, using a 3D analysis software. Good results were achieved in obtaining 3D printed dental models via IO or EO scanning, yet, the 3D printed dental model obtained via IO scanning (M3) showed slightly improved dimensional compatibility with the reference model (M1) in comparison with the 3D printed dental model manufactured via EO scanning (M2).

show abstract

“…Due to the extensive requirements of digitalization of conventional models, in partially digital workflows, a great number of studies were performed recently on the accuracy of full arch digital models [20,22,25,45,48,49], assessing different type of scanners used to digitalize the gypsum models [45], different scanning techniques [25], comparing different type of impression materials to digital https://doi.org/10.37358/MP.20.3.5384 impressions [20,22], but the evaluation of the factors involved in indirect digitalization such as the influence of the impression materials or techniques on the accuracy final digital model is limited.` The present study aimed to assess the accuracy of full arch models, obtained by pouring impressions from two different materials and two techniques frequently used for arch registration for implant planning, orthodontic treatment or prosthetic rehabilitation, before and after indirect digitalization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional Accuracy of Digitalized Stone Models Obtained from Alginic Acid Polymer and Poly-dimethyl-siloxane Impressions

Oancea¹,

Cristache²,

Petre³

et al. 2020

Mater. Plast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prognosis of the prosthetic rehabilitation is linked to the proper transfer of the clinical data to the dental laboratory, in the digital or conventional workflow. The aim of the present study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of analog and digitalized models, focusing on the influence of impression polymeric materials on the final digital model. Methods: The master model with standard reference points and the three groups of test models, obtained by alginic acid polymer impression (group A) and condensation-cured poly(dimethyl siloxane) in two impression techniques (1-step putty/light-body-group 1T, 2-steps putty/ light-body-group 2T), were measured in four standardized points before and after digitization. The differences from the master model and between the pair analog and digital models was calculated and statistically analysed using Mann-Whitney tests (2 groups), and one-way Anova (3 groups) with post-hoc Tukey s Test was applied for pairwise analysis (a;=0.05). Results: All analog and digitalized model tests showed altered dimensions from the master model. A general reduction of the digitalized models, in sagittal and transversal dimensions, was observed, comparing to the reference model. The impression material was a significant factor influencing dimensional accuracy. Conclusions: a statistically significant difference was found between most of the models and the master model. However, through digitalization, some of the errors were compensated. The digital models from alginic acid polymer group (group A) registered the highest trueness, with no statistically significant difference (P]0.05) from the reference model.

show abstract

3D Printed Dental Models A comparative analysis

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

Evaluation of the fused deposition modeling and the digital light processing techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy of printing dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners

Evaluation of the fused deposition modeling and the digital light processing techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy of printing dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners

Comparative Study on Two Methods Used in Obtaining 3D Printed Dental Models

Dimensional Accuracy of Digitalized Stone Models Obtained from Alginic Acid Polymer and Poly-dimethyl-siloxane Impressions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About