Comparative Analysis of Fused Deposition Modeling and Digital Light Processing Techniques for Dimensional Accuracy in Clear Aligner Manufacturing.

Wojciech Grzebieluch, Magdalena Grajzer, Marcin Mikulewicz
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Fused Deposition Modeling and Digital Light Processing Techniques for Dimensional Accuracy in Clear Aligner Manufacturing.","authors":"Wojciech Grzebieluch,&nbsp;Magdalena Grajzer,&nbsp;Marcin Mikulewicz","doi":"10.12659/MSM.940922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy for printing dental models used for the manufacture of clear dental aligners. MATERIAL AND METHODS Based on the intraoral scan of an adult patient, a sequence of 10 aligner models was created using BlueSkyPlan4. The test models (n=30) were fabricated with 2 desktop 3D printers: (DLP) and (FDM) printers. Two groups of samples were created (digitized using a desktop optical scanner). To calculate trueness (n=20) and precision (n=10), printed models were compared to the source files (REF). REF, DLP, and FDM files were superimposed and converted to point clouds. The cloud-to-cloud distances were calculated using CloudCompare software. Using the same algorithm, distortions of models were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS Significant differences were found between the trueness and precision of DLP and FDM groups. The average calculated trueness of DLP and FDM was 0.096 mm (0.021) (P<0.001) and 0.063 mm (0.024) (P<0.001), respectively. The average calculated precision of DLP and FDM was 0.027 mm (0.003) (P<0.001) and 0.036 mm (0.003) (P<0.001), respectively. A widening (0.158 mmfor DLP and 0.093 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) and twisting (0.03 mmfor DLP and 0.043 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) of the printed models was observed. CONCLUSIONS Both printers had sufficient precision for aligner models manufacturing. FDM showed a higher trueness and this device can be applied as an alternative to DLP. Polymerization shrinkage is a significant factor in decreasing the trueness of DLP printers.</p>","PeriodicalId":18276,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research","volume":"29 ","pages":"e940922"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f2/19/medscimonit-29-e940922.PMC10413909.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.940922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy for printing dental models used for the manufacture of clear dental aligners. MATERIAL AND METHODS Based on the intraoral scan of an adult patient, a sequence of 10 aligner models was created using BlueSkyPlan4. The test models (n=30) were fabricated with 2 desktop 3D printers: (DLP) and (FDM) printers. Two groups of samples were created (digitized using a desktop optical scanner). To calculate trueness (n=20) and precision (n=10), printed models were compared to the source files (REF). REF, DLP, and FDM files were superimposed and converted to point clouds. The cloud-to-cloud distances were calculated using CloudCompare software. Using the same algorithm, distortions of models were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS Significant differences were found between the trueness and precision of DLP and FDM groups. The average calculated trueness of DLP and FDM was 0.096 mm (0.021) (P<0.001) and 0.063 mm (0.024) (P<0.001), respectively. The average calculated precision of DLP and FDM was 0.027 mm (0.003) (P<0.001) and 0.036 mm (0.003) (P<0.001), respectively. A widening (0.158 mmfor DLP and 0.093 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) and twisting (0.03 mmfor DLP and 0.043 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) of the printed models was observed. CONCLUSIONS Both printers had sufficient precision for aligner models manufacturing. FDM showed a higher trueness and this device can be applied as an alternative to DLP. Polymerization shrinkage is a significant factor in decreasing the trueness of DLP printers.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
透明对准器制造尺寸精度的熔融沉积建模与数字光处理技术对比分析。
本研究旨在比较熔融沉积建模(FDM)和数字光处理(DLP)技术在打印牙科模型的尺寸精度方面的差异,这些模型用于制造透明牙齿矫正器。材料和方法基于成人患者的口腔内扫描,使用BlueSkyPlan4创建了10个排列器模型序列。测试模型(n=30)由两台台式3D打印机(DLP)和(FDM)打印机制作。创建了两组样本(使用桌面光学扫描仪进行数字化)。为了计算真实度(n=20)和精度(n=10),将打印模型与源文件(REF)进行比较。将REF, DLP和FDM文件叠加并转换为点云。云与云之间的距离使用CloudCompare软件计算。使用相同的算法,测量了模型的畸变。数据分析采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验。结果DLP组与FDM组的正确率和精密度有显著性差异。DLP和FDM的平均计算准确率为0.096 mm (0.021)
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Foot Structure in Preschool Children Based on Body Mass. The Role of Copper-Induced M2 Macrophage Polarization in Protecting Cartilage Matrix in Osteoarthritis. Predicting Acute Cardiovascular Complications in COVID-19: Insights from a Specialized Cardiac Referral Department. Comparative Analysis of Transoral Endoscopic Parathyroidectomy Vestibular Approach and Focused Open Surgery for Primary Hyperparathyroidism Treatment: A Single Center Experience Errate: Enhanced Patient Comfort and Satisfaction with Early Oral Feeding after Thoracoscopic Lung Cancer Resection
×
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