{"title":"三维打印氧化锆正畸托槽:打印方法对尺寸精度的影响","authors":"Zhi Tang, Jingtao Dai, Anlan Yu, Ping Li, Chufeng Liu, Xiaoqing Shen","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the effect of additive manufacturing (AM) methods on the slot height dimensions and accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic brackets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 3D model of a standard Mclaughlin Bennett Trevisi bracket was used as a reference to print the ceramic bracket in a 90° orientation using two representative AM methods: digital light processing (DLP) and material jetting (MJ). The dimensional accuracy and slot heights were determined using a scanning electron microscope and an optical scanner. Also, all specimens were analysed using the Geomagic Control X 3D inspection software. The root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analyses were performed using an independent sample t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Slot height dimensions, trueness RMS, and precision RMS were statistically affected by different AM methods (p < .01). There was a significant difference between the different printing methods, with DLP meeting the tolerance requirements (mean slot height = 0.557 ± 0.018 mm) and MJ being slightly below them (mean slot height = 0.544 ± 0.021 mm). However, MJ significantly outperformed DLP in terms of accuracy. Among the two printing methods, MJ was associated with higher trueness (RMS = 0.025 ± 0.004 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.038 ± 0.005 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tested AM methods yielded clinically acceptable outcomes, with the RMS range set to ±100 μm and the slot height tolerance established at 0.549-0.569 mm. The MJ technology achieved the highest accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"3D-printed zirconia orthodontic brackets: Effect of printing method on dimensional accuracy.\",\"authors\":\"Zhi Tang, Jingtao Dai, Anlan Yu, Ping Li, Chufeng Liu, Xiaoqing Shen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ocr.12847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the effect of additive manufacturing (AM) methods on the slot height dimensions and accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic brackets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 3D model of a standard Mclaughlin Bennett Trevisi bracket was used as a reference to print the ceramic bracket in a 90° orientation using two representative AM methods: digital light processing (DLP) and material jetting (MJ). The dimensional accuracy and slot heights were determined using a scanning electron microscope and an optical scanner. Also, all specimens were analysed using the Geomagic Control X 3D inspection software. The root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analyses were performed using an independent sample t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Slot height dimensions, trueness RMS, and precision RMS were statistically affected by different AM methods (p < .01). There was a significant difference between the different printing methods, with DLP meeting the tolerance requirements (mean slot height = 0.557 ± 0.018 mm) and MJ being slightly below them (mean slot height = 0.544 ± 0.021 mm). However, MJ significantly outperformed DLP in terms of accuracy. Among the two printing methods, MJ was associated with higher trueness (RMS = 0.025 ± 0.004 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.038 ± 0.005 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both tested AM methods yielded clinically acceptable outcomes, with the RMS range set to ±100 μm and the slot height tolerance established at 0.549-0.569 mm. The MJ technology achieved the highest accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12847\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究探讨了增材制造(AM)方法对 3D 打印正畸托槽槽高尺寸和精度的影响:本研究调查了增材制造(AM)方法对三维打印正畸托槽槽高尺寸和精度的影响:以标准 Mclaughlin Bennett Trevisi 托槽的三维模型为参考,使用两种具有代表性的 AM 方法:数字光处理 (DLP) 和材料喷射 (MJ) 以 90° 方向打印陶瓷托槽。使用扫描电子显微镜和光学扫描仪确定了尺寸精度和槽高度。此外,还使用 Geomagic Control X 3D 检测软件对所有试样进行了分析。均方根(RMS)值用于真实度和精度评估。统计分析采用独立样本 t 检验:结果:槽高度尺寸、真实度均方根和精度均方根受不同 AM 方法的统计影响(p 结论:两种测试 AM 方法都能获得临床意义上的槽高度尺寸、真实度均方根和精度均方根:所测试的两种 AM 方法都获得了临床上可接受的结果,均方根范围设定为 ±100 μm,槽高度公差设定为 0.549-0.569 mm。MJ 技术的精确度最高。
3D-printed zirconia orthodontic brackets: Effect of printing method on dimensional accuracy.
Objectives: This study investigated the effect of additive manufacturing (AM) methods on the slot height dimensions and accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic brackets.
Methods: A 3D model of a standard Mclaughlin Bennett Trevisi bracket was used as a reference to print the ceramic bracket in a 90° orientation using two representative AM methods: digital light processing (DLP) and material jetting (MJ). The dimensional accuracy and slot heights were determined using a scanning electron microscope and an optical scanner. Also, all specimens were analysed using the Geomagic Control X 3D inspection software. The root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analyses were performed using an independent sample t-test.
Results: Slot height dimensions, trueness RMS, and precision RMS were statistically affected by different AM methods (p < .01). There was a significant difference between the different printing methods, with DLP meeting the tolerance requirements (mean slot height = 0.557 ± 0.018 mm) and MJ being slightly below them (mean slot height = 0.544 ± 0.021 mm). However, MJ significantly outperformed DLP in terms of accuracy. Among the two printing methods, MJ was associated with higher trueness (RMS = 0.025 ± 0.004 mm) and precision (RMS = 0.038 ± 0.005 mm).
Conclusions: Both tested AM methods yielded clinically acceptable outcomes, with the RMS range set to ±100 μm and the slot height tolerance established at 0.549-0.569 mm. The MJ technology achieved the highest accuracy.