Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques

Kim, Soo Yeon; Shin, Young Goo; Jung, Harald; Hwang, Chung Ju; Baik, Hyoung Seon; Yul, Jung

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025

Cited by 232 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An RMS value with the square of all values, then the average (mean) of these square values, and finally the square root of this mean value offers a new, and most likely more accurate, approach describing a deviation from the reference object. This study, like only few other recent studies mostly from the field of dentistry, focused on the RMS value [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

Msallem

Sharma

Cao

et al. 2020

JCM

161

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the rapid progression of additive manufacturing and the emergence of new 3D printing technologies, accuracy assessment is mostly being performed on isosymmetric-shaped test bodies. However, the accuracy of anatomic models can vary. The dimensional accuracy of root mean square values in terms of trueness and precision of 50 mandibular replicas, printed with five common printing technologies, were evaluated. The highest trueness was found for the selective laser sintering printer (0.11 ± 0.016 mm), followed by a binder jetting printer (0.14 ± 0.02 mm), and a fused filament fabrication printer (0.16 ± 0.009 mm). However, highest precision was identified for the fused filament fabrication printer (0.05 ± 0.005 mm) whereas other printers had marginally lower values. Despite the statistically significance (p < 0.001), these differences can be considered clinically insignificant. These findings demonstrate that all 3D printing technologies create models with satisfactory dimensional accuracy for surgical use. Since satisfactory results in terms of accuracy can be reached with most technologies, the choice should be more strongly based on the printing materials, the intended use, and the overall budget. The simplest printing technology (fused filament fabrication) always scored high and thus is a reliable choice for most purposes. therefore apply to different fields of medicine and dentistry. With the continuous development of each individual technology, none stand out significantly from the others and so all are represented in the daily medical routine.Even though AM was introduced into medicine many years ago, the production of anatomical models often is still one of the main areas of application [3][4][5][6]. In opinion polls, surgeons still tend to regard anatomical models as advantageous for daily work [7]. For instance, anatomical models offer numerous advantages over other learning resources in understanding complex anatomical correlations [8]. The combination of optical and tactile sensitivity leads to a superior understanding and has defined the concept "touch to comprehend" [9]. A meta-analysis of 158 studies from 2005 to 2015 described further advantages such as possibilities for preoperative planning and time savings in the operating room, but emphasized that accuracy was not satisfactory in 34 studies [10]. Although most manufacturers provide the specifications in terms of accuracy, these are mostly uncertain in the final clinical application. In addition, most tests are performed on isosymmetric-shaped bodies [11], but the use of anatomical models may reveal larger dimensional errors. Measurements with skull and mandibular models revealed incorrect or completely missing anatomy [12]. Even deformations of 3D printed dental surgical guides were reported [13]. Inaccuracies in 3D printing applications can lead to inappropriate treatment that could harm the patient.Identical procedures with the same material under the same circumstances do not necessary lead to identical results. Statistical standards descr...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

Msallem

Sharma

Cao

et al. 2020

JCM

161

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of digital models as an alternative to conventional ones, made of gypsum, has been recommended and successfully used for many years in orthodontics, for specific measurements (2011) [26]. In connection with the printing techniques of 3D dental models, some studies claim that the PolyJet and DLP (digital light processing) printing methods allow to obtain more accurate models than the SLA (stereolithography) or FFF (fused filament fabrication) methods [27]. Camardella et al (2017) [28], find that the printed models made by the PolyJet technique have appropriate accuracy, regardless of the base model (full/regular base; arcade/horseshoe; arch with posterior reinforcement bar), while the models printed by SLA technique (stereolithography) show statistically significant differences (transverse contraction) in terms of accuracy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pantea¹,

Ciocoiu²,

Țâncu³

et al. 2019

Mat.Plast.

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

“…To date, studies that used DLP printers include those that analyzed model shrinkage rate 14) , model fitness 12,15,16) , and molar fitness of resin crowns 17) . There are few studies on the fitness of resin crowns fabricated using a DLP printer in the current field of dental implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Internal Fitness on Resin Crown Fabricated by Digital Light Processing 3D Printer

Kang

Kim

2019

J Dent Hyg Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recently, three-dimensional (3D) printing has been hailed as a disruptive technology in dentistry. Among 3D printers, a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer has certain advantages, such as high precision and relatively low cost. Therefore, the latest trend in resin crown manufacturing is the use of DLP 3D printers. However, studies on the internal fitness of such resin crowns are insufficient. The recently introduced 3D evaluation method makes it possible to visually evaluate the error of the desired area. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the internal fitness of resin crowns fabricated a by DLP 3D printer using the 3D evaluation method. Methods: The working model was chosen as the maxillary molar implant model. A total of 20 resin crowns were manufactured by dividing these into two groups. One group was manufactured by subtractive manufacturing system (PMMA), while the other group was manufactured by additive manufacturing system, which uses a DLP 3D printer. Resin crowns data were measured using a 3D evaluation program. Internal fitness was calculated by root mean square (RMS). The RMS was calculated using the Geomagic Verify software, and the mean and standard deviation (SD) were measured. For statistical analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows ver. 22.0 (IBM Corp., USA) was used. Then, independent t-test was performed between the two groups. Results: The mean±SD of the RMS were 41.51±1.51 and 43.09±2.32 for PMMA and DLP, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between PMMA and DLP. Conclusion: Evaluation of internal fitness of the resin crown made using a DLP 3D printer and subtractive manufacturing system showed no statistically significant differences, and clinically acceptable results were obtained.

show abstract

Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques

Abstract: The 3D printing techniques showed significant differences in precision of all measurements and in trueness of tooth and arch measurements. The PolyJet and DLP techniques were more precise than the FFF and SLA techniques, with the PolyJet technique having the highest accuracy.

Cited by 232 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of 3D-Printed Anatomical Mandibular Models Using FFF, SLA, SLS, MJ, and BJ Printing Technology

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

Assessment of Internal Fitness on Resin Crown Fabricated by Digital Light Processing 3D Printer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About