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

Introduction: In this study, we assessed the precision and trueness of dental models printed with 3‐dimensional (3D) printers via different printing techniques. Methods: Digital reference models were printed 5 times using stereolithography apparatus (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), fused filament fabrication (FFF), and the PolyJet technique. The 3D printed models were scanned and evaluated for tooth, arch, and occlusion measurements. Precision and trueness were analyzed with root mean squares (RMS) for the differences in each measurement. Differences in measurement variables among the 3D printing techniques were analyzed by 1‐way analysis of variance (&agr; = 0.05). Results: Except in trueness of occlusion measurements, there were significant differences in all measurements among the 4 techniques (P <0.001). For overall tooth measurements, the DLP (76 ± 14 &mgr;m) and PolyJet (68 ± 9 &mgr;m) techniques exhibited significantly different mean RMS values of precision than the SLA (88 ± 14 &mgr;m) and FFF (99 ± 14 &mgr;m) techniques (P <0.05). For overall arch measurements, the SLA (176 ± 73 &mgr;m) had significantly different RMS values than the DLP (74 ± 34 &mgr;m), FFF (89 ± 34 &mgr;m), and PolyJet (69 ± 18 &mgr;m) techniques (P <0.05). For overall occlusion measurements, the FFF (170 ± 55 &mgr;m) exhibited significantly different RMS values than the SLA (94 ± 33 &mgr;m), DLP (120 ± 28 &mgr;m), and PolyJet (96 ± 33 &mgr;m) techniques (P <0.05). There were significant differences in mean RMS values of trueness of overall tooth measurements among all 4 techniques: SLA (107 ± 11 &mgr;m), DLP (143 ± 8 &mgr;m), FFF (188 ± 14 &mgr;m), and PolyJet (78 ± 9 &mgr;m) (P <0.05). For overall arch measurements, the SLA (141 ± 35 &mgr;m) and PolyJet (86 ± 17 &mgr;m) techniques exhibited significantly different mean RMS values of trueness than DLP (469 ± 49 &mgr;m) and FFF (409 ± 36 &mgr;m) (P <0.05). Conclusions: 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. HighlightsThe PolyJet technique provides the greatest trueness and precision.Accuracy of 3‐dimensional printers differs in the sizes of print outcomes.Three‐dimensional printing techniques may be used for orthodontic purposes.

[1]  Mika Salmi,et al.  Accuracy of medical models made by additive manufacturing (rapid manufacturing). , 2013, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[2]  Derek K Smith,et al.  Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models. , 2015, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  Sumeet Kumar Sharma,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of Dimension and Surface Detail Accuracy of Models Produced by Three Different Rapid Prototype Techniques , 2012, Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society.

[4]  Jai-Young Koak,et al.  Comparison of five-axis milling and rapid prototyping for implant surgical templates. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[5]  Yehya A Mostafa,et al.  Virtual techniques for designing and fabricating a retainer. , 2014, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  Massimo Martorelli,et al.  Surface roughness visualisation for rapid prototyping models , 2002, Comput. Aided Des..

[7]  J. Y. Choi,et al.  Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models. , 2002, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[8]  Herbert Scheller,et al.  Učinakoptičkogkondicioniranjapreparacijesprejemza skeniranje na oblik preparacije The Effect of Optical Conditioning of Preparations with Scan Spray on Preparation Form , 2011 .

[9]  Zubeda Beguma,et al.  Rapid prototyping--when virtual meets reality. , 2014, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[10]  Taiji Sohmura,et al.  Complete 3-D reconstruction of dental cast shape using perceptual grouping , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  A. Johal,et al.  Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. , 2011, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[12]  Aletta Hazeveld,et al.  Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. , 2014, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  Tatjana Dostalova,et al.  Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models , 2013, Biomedical engineering online.

[14]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  D. Silva,et al.  Dimensional error of selective laser sintering, three-dimensional printing and PolyJet models in the reproduction of mandibular anatomy. , 2009, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[16]  Salvatore Gerbino,et al.  A comparison between customized clear and removable orthodontic appliances manufactured using RP and CNC techniques. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[17]  Balvinder S Khambay,et al.  How accurate are rapid prototyped (RP) final orthognathic surgical wafers? A pilot study. , 2014, The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery.

[18]  Felice Festa,et al.  Rapid prototyping: a new method of preparing trays for indirect bonding. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  Xiem Phan,et al.  Clinical limitations of Invisalign. , 2007, Journal.

[20]  Herbert Scheller,et al.  Učinak optičkog kondicioniranja preparacije sprejem za skeniranje na oblik preparacije , 2011 .