Effect of layer thickness, inner structure, and implant angulation on the accuracy of 3D printed models with implant analogs

Ingy Nouh, Nancy Rafla, Omar El Sergany
{"title":"Effect of layer thickness, inner structure, and implant angulation on the accuracy of 3D printed models with implant analogs","authors":"Ingy Nouh, Nancy Rafla, Omar El Sergany","doi":"10.21608/edj.2024.260280.2860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study evaluated the effect of layer thickness, model inner structure, and implant angulation on the accuracy of 3D printed models with repositional analogs. Materials and methods : 126 models designed to receive all-on-4 implant retained fixed dental prosthesis were 3D printed. Models were divided into 2 groups (n=63) according to posterior implant angulation (Group 1; 30˚ and group 2;45˚). The models were then divided into three sub-groups (n=21) according to the printing layer thickness (Group a; 50 µm, group b; 100 µm, and group c; 150 µm). Each subgroup was later subdivided into 3 divisions (n=7) according to the model inner structure (Group I; solid, group II; hollow, and group III; honeycomb). Trueness was analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software by comparing the model scans to the reference model STL file. Results: Both inner structure and layer thickness had a significant effect on the final accuracy (p<0.001). Distal implant angulation had no effect on the final accuracy of the printed model (p=0.968). Regarding layer thickness, tukeys post-hoc test revealed that both 100 µm (24.9 ± 2.4) and 150 µm (24.5 ± 1.1) layer thickness showed higher accuracy than the 50 µm (27.9 ± 2.4) layer thickness. As for model form, tukeys post hoc test revealed that the solid (24.9 ± 1.4) and honey-comb (25 ± 1.5) models were more accurate than the hollow models (27.5±3.3). Conclusion: Implant angulation had no effect on the final accuracy of the model. Both 50 µm print layer thickness and hollow model inner structure showed the least accuracy. Clinical relevance: Printing layer thickness of 100 to 150 µm with a solid or honeycomb model inner form will provide the best 3D positional accuracy for implant analogs","PeriodicalId":11504,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian dental journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2024.260280.2860","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

Objective: This study evaluated the effect of layer thickness, model inner structure, and implant angulation on the accuracy of 3D printed models with repositional analogs. Materials and methods : 126 models designed to receive all-on-4 implant retained fixed dental prosthesis were 3D printed. Models were divided into 2 groups (n=63) according to posterior implant angulation (Group 1; 30˚ and group 2;45˚). The models were then divided into three sub-groups (n=21) according to the printing layer thickness (Group a; 50 µm, group b; 100 µm, and group c; 150 µm). Each subgroup was later subdivided into 3 divisions (n=7) according to the model inner structure (Group I; solid, group II; hollow, and group III; honeycomb). Trueness was analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software by comparing the model scans to the reference model STL file. Results: Both inner structure and layer thickness had a significant effect on the final accuracy (p<0.001). Distal implant angulation had no effect on the final accuracy of the printed model (p=0.968). Regarding layer thickness, tukeys post-hoc test revealed that both 100 µm (24.9 ± 2.4) and 150 µm (24.5 ± 1.1) layer thickness showed higher accuracy than the 50 µm (27.9 ± 2.4) layer thickness. As for model form, tukeys post hoc test revealed that the solid (24.9 ± 1.4) and honey-comb (25 ± 1.5) models were more accurate than the hollow models (27.5±3.3). Conclusion: Implant angulation had no effect on the final accuracy of the model. Both 50 µm print layer thickness and hollow model inner structure showed the least accuracy. Clinical relevance: Printing layer thickness of 100 to 150 µm with a solid or honeycomb model inner form will provide the best 3D positional accuracy for implant analogs
层厚度、内部结构和种植体角度对 3D 打印模型与种植体类似物精度的影响
目的:本研究评估了层厚度、模型内部结构和种植体角度对三维打印模型与再定位类似物精度的影响。材料和方法:126 个模型被设计为接受全对四种植体固位的固定义齿,并进行了三维打印。根据种植体后倾角将模型分为两组(n=63)(第 1 组:30˚;第 2 组:45˚)。然后根据印刷层厚度将模型分为三组(n=21)(a 组:50 微米,b 组:100 微米,c 组:150 微米)。之后,根据模型内部结构(第一组:实心,第二组:空心,第三组:蜂窝),每个子组又分为 3 个部分(n=7)。使用 Geomagic controlX 分析软件将模型扫描结果与参考模型 STL 文件进行比较,分析模型的真实性。结果显示内部结构和层厚度对最终精度都有显著影响(p<0.001)。种植体远端角度对打印模型的最终精确度没有影响(p=0.968)。关于层厚,tukeys 事后检验显示,100 微米(24.9 ± 2.4)和 150 微米(24.5 ± 1.1)的层厚比 50 微米(27.9 ± 2.4)的层厚精度更高。至于模型形式,tukeys 事后检验显示,实心模型(24.9 ± 1.4)和蜂窝模型(25 ± 1.5)比空心模型(27.5±3.3)更准确。结论种植体角度对模型的最终精确度没有影响。50 µm 打印层厚度和空心模型内部结构显示的精确度最低。临床意义:打印层厚度为 100 至 150 微米,内部结构为实心或蜂窝状,将为种植体模拟提供最佳的三维定位精度。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信