Accuracy of 3D Printer Technologies Using Digital Dental Models.

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Pub Date : 2024-12-31 DOI:10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2023.8
Şule Gökmen, Serkan Görgülü, Kübra Gülnur Topsakal, Gökhan Serhat Duran
{"title":"Accuracy of 3D Printer Technologies Using Digital Dental Models.","authors":"Şule Gökmen, Serkan Görgülü, Kübra Gülnur Topsakal, Gökhan Serhat Duran","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2023.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the manufacturing accuracy of different printing techniques - Stereolithography (SLA), Digital Light Processing (DLP), and PolyJet-using digital dental models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included cast models of 30 patients aged between 12 and 20 years. The selected models were scanned using an intraoral scanner, and surface topography format files were obtained. The models were produced from 3D printers with SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technology and scanned with an intraoral scanner. The digital files of the reference and printed models were superimposed with reverse engineering software. Root mean squared (RMS) values and point registration differences were evaluated. Furthermore, digital mesiodistal measurements of the teeth were taken to determine the point registration deviation values. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the measurements. ANOVA was used to evaluate differences between normally distributed data. In addition, a box plot was used to show the variability in the measurements, and the Bland-Altman test was used to examine the agreement between the measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According to the digital superimposition data of DLP-SLA-PolyJet technologies, PolyJet had the smallest RMS (0.145±0.10 mm), followed by DLP and SLA (0.161±0.12 mm and 0.345±0.23 mm, respectively). In the mesiodistal dimensional measurement evaluations, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the averages of the main reference and DLP, PolyJet, and SLA measurements for all teeth.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to the results of this study, all three production technologies are clinically usable at the model production stage. However, SLA was found to be less accurate than DLP and PolyJet.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"37 4","pages":"257-264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2023.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the manufacturing accuracy of different printing techniques - Stereolithography (SLA), Digital Light Processing (DLP), and PolyJet-using digital dental models.

Methods: The study included cast models of 30 patients aged between 12 and 20 years. The selected models were scanned using an intraoral scanner, and surface topography format files were obtained. The models were produced from 3D printers with SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technology and scanned with an intraoral scanner. The digital files of the reference and printed models were superimposed with reverse engineering software. Root mean squared (RMS) values and point registration differences were evaluated. Furthermore, digital mesiodistal measurements of the teeth were taken to determine the point registration deviation values. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the measurements. ANOVA was used to evaluate differences between normally distributed data. In addition, a box plot was used to show the variability in the measurements, and the Bland-Altman test was used to examine the agreement between the measurements.

Results: According to the digital superimposition data of DLP-SLA-PolyJet technologies, PolyJet had the smallest RMS (0.145±0.10 mm), followed by DLP and SLA (0.161±0.12 mm and 0.345±0.23 mm, respectively). In the mesiodistal dimensional measurement evaluations, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between the averages of the main reference and DLP, PolyJet, and SLA measurements for all teeth.

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, all three production technologies are clinically usable at the model production stage. However, SLA was found to be less accurate than DLP and PolyJet.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用数字牙科模型的3D打印机技术的准确性。
目的:利用数字牙科模型,比较立体光刻(SLA)、数字光处理(DLP)和polyjet三种不同打印技术的制造精度。方法:选取年龄在12 ~ 20岁的30例患者的模型。选择的模型使用口腔内扫描仪扫描,并获得表面形貌格式文件。使用SLA、DLP和PolyJet技术的3D打印机制作模型,并使用口腔内扫描仪进行扫描。利用逆向工程软件对参考模型和打印模型的数字文件进行叠加。评估均方根(RMS)值和点配准差异。此外,采用数字近远端测量牙齿以确定点配准偏差值。描述性统计用于评价测量结果。方差分析用于评价正态分布数据之间的差异。此外,使用箱形图来显示测量结果的可变性,并使用Bland-Altman检验来检查测量结果之间的一致性。结果:根据DLP-SLA-PolyJet技术的数字叠加数据,PolyJet的RMS最小(0.145±0.10 mm), DLP和SLA的RMS分别为0.161±0.12 mm和0.345±0.23 mm。在近远端尺寸测量评估中,主参考牙与所有牙的DLP、PolyJet和SLA测量的平均值差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。结论:根据本研究结果,三种生产技术在模型生产阶段均具有临床可用性。然而,SLA的准确性低于DLP和PolyJet。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics
Turkish Journal of Orthodontics Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of 3D Printer Technologies Using Digital Dental Models. Comparing the Impact of Titanium and Stainless Steel Retainers on Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Health, and Retainer Survival: A Preliminary Study. Comparison of the Effects of Fixed and Removable Functional Orthodontic Treatment on the Mandibular Trabecular Bone in Fractal Analysis. Effects of Emotional States on Reproducibilities of Rest Position, Social and Spontaneous Smiles, and Speech. Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1