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, Magdalena Grajzer, 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.
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)