Geometrical accuracy of metallic objects produced with additive or subtractive manufacturing: A comparative in vitro study

Braian, Michael; Jonsson, David; Kevci, Mir; Wennerberg, Ann

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.009

Cited by 41 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results confirmed that the error in the metal AM process was dictated by the z-axis of the build which was also reported in a previous study using five different metal AM machines [59]. In the present study, differences of up to 80% were observed for x-and y-scales compared to the z-scale of the build.…”

Section: Additive Manufacturingsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The z-scale of an AM machine is governed by the layer thickness, whereas the x-and y-scales are dependent on the size of the laser/electron beam spot and the resolution of its steering mechanism, e.g., galvanometer-based mirrors or deflection coils. Though different metal AM machines can generally create accurate geometries [59], inconsistencies remain mainly due to a lack of identical build mechanisms (i.e., laser beam, electron beam, build environment, scanning system, etc.) and process parameters (i.e., source power, layer thickness, scanning speed, scanning strategy, inert gas flow, substrate temperature, powder particle profile, etc.).…”

Section: Additive Manufacturingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each step of the process can contribute geometric error to the resulting implant [53]. Previous efforts have been made to evaluate inaccuracies through different CT systems and their protocols [37]; different CT system voltage and current [54]; various CT systems and thresholding values [39,55]; different thresholding values [54,56]; various thresholding values and software [57]; different AM processes [53,58]; and various metal AM machines [59], all of which have prompted additional verification studies that account for the whole process chain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In craniomaxillofacial surgical procedures, an emerging practice adopts the preoperative virtual planning that uses medical imaging (computed tomography), 3D thresholding (segmentation), 3D modeling (digital design), and additive manufacturing (3D printing) for the procurement of an end-use implant. The objective of this case study was to evaluate the cumulative spatial inaccuracies arising from each step of the process chain when various computed tomography protocols and thresholding values were independently changed. A custom-made quality assurance instrument (Phantom) was used to evaluate the medical imaging error. A sus domesticus (domestic pig) head was analyzed to determine the 3D thresholding error. The 3D modeling error was estimated from the computer-aided design software. Finally, the end-use implant was used to evaluate the additive manufacturing error. The results were verified using accurate measurement instruments and techniques. A worst-case cumulative error of 1.7 mm (3.0%) was estimated for one boundary condition and 2.3 mm (4.1%) for two boundary conditions considering the maximum length (56.9 mm) of the end-use implant. Uncertainty from the clinical imaging to the end-use implant was 0.8 mm (1.4%). This study helps practitioners establish and corroborate surgical practices that are within the bounds of an appropriate accuracy for clinical treatment and restoration.

show abstract

Section: Additive Manufacturingsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Additive Manufacturingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many advantages including the time efficiency, since this technique can be used to fabricate many objects at the same time. This technique is environment-friendly because the materials are consumed only as necessary so it reduces waste materials and cost (22,25,27) . Common technologies used currently are: 1) laser sintering, 2)…”

Section: Figure 2 Cam/cam Manufacturing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

Henprasert

Dawson

El‐Kerdani

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Queiruga for your assistance in developing the measurement protocol and for providing training on GeoMagic software. Thank you to Kyle Bennett for his technical support in milling the surgical guides. Thank you to my co-residents for your help and sharing practical suggestions throughout the years of my study. I am also grateful to all the faculty, staff and dental assistants for their support and assistance.

show abstract

“…39 A few studies have compared the accuracy of metal AM in manufacturing with subtractive methods; although dental studies have reported similar manufacturing accuracy, none of the AM or subtractive procedures obtained a perfect match to the CAD file. 40,41 The dental literature comparing microstructural, mechanical and electrochemical properties of casted, milled, and PFB AM metal dental alloys is scarce. 3,39,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Moreover, the chemical composition of the different Co-Cr and Ti dental alloys vary due to the different manufacturing procedures complicating direct comparisons.…”

Section: Conventional Versus Am Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Applications of Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used to Fabricate Metals in Implant Dentistry

Revilla‐León

Sadeghpour²,

Özcan

2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To review the primary additive manufacturing (AM) technologies used to fabricate metals in implant dentistry and compare them to conventional casting and subtractive methods. Methods The literature on metal AM technologies was reviewed, and the AM procedures and their current applications in implant dentistry were collated and described. Collection of published articles about metal AM in dental field data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science searched. All studies related to AM technology description, analysis, and evaluation of applications in implant dentistry, including AM titanium (Ti) dental implants, customized Ti mesh for bone grafting techniques, cobalt‐chromium (Co‐Cr) frameworks for implant impression procedures, and Co‐Cr and Ti frameworks for dental implant‐supported prostheses were reviewed. Results Literature has demonstrated the potential of AM technologies to fabricate dental implants, root‐analog implants, and functionally graded implants; as well as the ability to fabricate customized meshes for bone grafting procedures. Metal AM technologies provide a reliable method to manufacture frameworks for implant impression procedures. Co‐Cr and Ti AM frameworks for implant‐supported prostheses provide a clinically acceptable discrepancy at the implant‐prostheses interface. Conclusions Additional clinical studies are required to assess the long‐term clinical performance, biological and mechanical complications, and prosthetic restoration capabilities of additively manufactured dental implants. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate their long‐term success and survival rates and biological and mechanical complications of AM implant‐supported prostheses.

show abstract

Geometrical accuracy of metallic objects produced with additive or subtractive manufacturing: A comparative in vitro study

Cited by 41 publications

References 39 publications

Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant

Cumulative Inaccuracies in Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Through Medical Imaging, 3D Thresholding, and 3D Modeling: A Case Study for an End-Use Implant

Comparison of the Accuracy of Implant Position Using Surgical Guides Fabricated by Additive and Subtractive Techniques

A Review of the Applications of Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used to Fabricate Metals in Implant Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About