Build Angle: Does It Influence the Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Restorations Using Digital Light-Processing Technology?

Osman, Reham B.; Alharbi, Nawal; Wismeijer, Daniël

doi:10.11607/ijp.5117

Cited by 163 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another limitation was that the build angle of the 3D printed models in this study was 180°, which means the model base was flat on the printing platform. Osman et al reported on the effect of the build angle on the dimensional accuracy of 3D printed restorations. They recommended that the build angle for complete coverage restorations should be 135° when using for DLP system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base

Rungrojwittayakul

Kan

Shiozaki

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

127

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of three‐dimensional (3D) printed models manufactured using two different printer technologies with different model base designs. Materials and Methods A maxillary typodont was scanned using a desktop scanner to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file as a reference scan. After the scanning procedure, the STL file was exported to Model Builder™ for designing the following two types of the model bases: a solid base design and a hollow base design with a 2.0 mm thickness of the external shell. Each design was printed to produce 10 models using a Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) printer and a Digital Light Processing (DLP) printer. The following four groups were tested: CLIP with solid base (CS); CLIP with hollow base (CH); DLP with solid base (DS); and DLP with hollow base (DH). A total of 40 models were scanned using the same desktop scanner to generate the STL files for evaluation of the accuracy by evaluation of trueness and precision. All STL files were superimposed with the control STL file via surface matching software and a comparison was performed using the 3D color mapping function and a 2D comparison of 48 points selected on the tested model. The data were collected by measuring the deviation between the tested model and the reference scan. Trueness was calculated by using the comparison among four tested groups. The Kruskal‐Wallis analysis was conducted to assess the overall statistical significance of differences among the tested groups (α = 0.05). For precision measurement, the evaluation was conducted using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) value at 95% confident interval to determine the deviation within the same tested groups. Results The median values for the deviated distance of the four tested groups were 0.045 (CH), 0.035 (CS), 0.077 (DH), and 0.077 mm (DS). There were no statistically significant differences between the trueness of the two groups when using the same printers regardless of the designs of model base (p > 0.05). However, when comparing the two printers using the same model base design and the two different designs of model base, there were statistically significant differences in trueness (p < 0.05). The 3D printed models created using CLIP technology had higher trueness than the DLP technology printer. Precision of the 3D printed model was displayed in ICC value. The ICC values of four tested groups were 0.968 (CH), 0.981 (CS), 0.969 (DH), and 0.983 (DS). All tested groups were classified as exhibiting an excellent level of precision based on 95% confident interval of the ICC estimation. Conclusions The accuracy of 3D printed models was affected by the printer technology regardless of whether the model base was solid or hollow. The CLIP technology printer produced significantly less variation from the reference model than the DLP printer. However, all of the 3D printed models were determined to exhibit a clinically acceptable level of accuracy based on the recorded dimensions being less than 100 µm diffe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base

Rungrojwittayakul

Kan

Shiozaki

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

127

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different findings might occur due to the settings of the 3D printer as well. Different arrangement of the copings, die spacer thickness, and build angle could also influence the accuracy of the printed resin interim crowns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Adaptation of Interim Crowns using Different Measurement Techniques

Peng

Chung

Ramos

2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare the internal fit and marginal discrepancy of acrylic resin interim crowns fabricated by different manufacturing methods, and to test the consistency of measuring marginal discrepancy and internal fit between different measuring techniques. Materials and Methods: A dentoform mandibular left first molar was prepared for an all-ceramic crown. Thirty-six interim crowns were fabricated and divided into three groups (n = 12): group BAC (Bis-acrylic composite, fabricated manually), group CAM (CAD/CAM polymethylmethacrylate resin, milled), and group 3DP (3D printed methacrylic oligomers, printed). The internal fit of the interim crowns was evaluated by the silicone replica technique and by X-ray microcomputed tomography (µCT) technique. The marginal discrepancy of the interim crowns was evaluated by the vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) (Aquasil Ultra XLV) impression technique and by optical coherence tomography (OCT) technique. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Turkey tests at α = 0.05. Pearson correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between the different measurement techniques and marginal discrepancy/internal fit. Results: The manually fabricated interim crowns (group BAC) had significantly greater discrepancy of internal fit than did the digitally fabricated crowns (group CAM and group 3DP) measured by both silicone replica technique and µCT 2-dimensional (2D) image measurement. There were no statistically significant differences in the cement space volume values obtained by the µCT image technique between group BAC and group 3DP (p = 0.285). The coefficient of determination between the two volumetric measurement techniques was low (R 2 = 0.30). For marginal discrepancy, the manually fabricated interim crowns had a wider absolute marginal discrepancy than both digitally fabricated groups (p < 0.05). In both the VPS impression and OCT assessment, there was no statistically significant difference between group CAM and group 3DP (p = 0.798 and 0.994, respectively). The coefficient of determination between the VPS impression and OCT techniques for marginal discrepancy measurement was low (R 2 = 0.23). Conclusions: Digitally fabricated interim crowns (group CAM and group 3DP) had better internal fit and smaller marginal discrepancy than manually fabricated interim crowns (group BAC). For comparison of the different evaluation techniques, the silicone replica technique and µCT measurements had low correlation for internal fit assessment, as did the PVS impression and OCT techniques for marginal discrepancy test.

show abstract

“…The main difference to stereolithography is the fact that the light is projected on the whole layer, while stereolithography employs spot laser beam. DLP enables faster printing than stereolithography, with layer thickness of less than 30 µm [26,27]. EnvisionTEC (Gladbeck, Germany) introduced 3D printers applying the following technology to the market: Ultra 3SP Ortho and Perfactory Micro Ortho.…”

Section: Digital Light Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D printing technology in orthodontics – review of current applications

Bartkowiak¹,

Walkowiak-Śliziuk²

2018

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing is a relatively new technology with rapidly growing range of applications in many fields of medicine and dentistry. The developments of available computer-aided design software and additive manufacturing hardware allowed integrating the technology in orthodontics, and revolutionizing the workflow in orthodontic practices and laboratories around the world. 3D printing is now easily accessible for orthodontists, being a reliable and cost-effective manufacturing method, which may be used in many aspects of orthodontic practice, and its potential is still growing. The article gives necessary insight into the history, development, and available technologies of additive manufacturing. Moreover, it summarizes and reviews current literature concerning all aspects of clinical use of 3D printing in orthodontics.

show abstract

Build Angle: Does It Influence the Accuracy of 3D-Printed Dental Restorations Using Digital Light-Processing Technology?

Cited by 163 publications

References 0 publications

Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base

Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base

Assessment of the Adaptation of Interim Crowns using Different Measurement Techniques

3D printing technology in orthodontics – review of current applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About