Effect of printing technology and orientation on the accuracy of three-dimensional printed retainers.

Tarek ElShebiny, Luciane Macedo de Menezes, Stefanos Matthaios, Ioannis A Tsolakis, Juan Martin Palomo
{"title":"Effect of printing technology and orientation on the accuracy of three-dimensional printed retainers.","authors":"Tarek ElShebiny, Luciane Macedo de Menezes, Stefanos Matthaios, Ioannis A Tsolakis, Juan Martin Palomo","doi":"10.2319/120823-812.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the impact of printer technology and print orientation on the accuracy of directly printed retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Digital retainers were printed with two different printing technologies: digital light processing (DLP) and stereolithography (SLA), using two different orientations: 0° and 90°. After printing, the retainers (n = 40) were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography. The DICOM files were then converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. Comparison of the printed retainers with a master file was done by superimposition using a three-dimensional (3D) best-fit tool in Geomagic software. A ±0.25 mm tolerance was set to detect differences between the superimposed files. Statistical analysis was conducted (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, with Bonferroni correction).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The lowest median average deviation was observed for the DLP horizontally printed models (median, [interquartile range (IQR)] = 0.01 mm, [-0.01, 0.02]) followed by the SLA horizontally printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 0.05 mm, [0.03, 0.07]). The highest median inside the tolerance levels ratio was observed for the horizontally SLA printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.9%, [74.4, 82.4%]) followed by the horizontally DLP printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.2%, [74.5, 80.7%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both technologies (DLP and SLA) showed 3D printed results compatible with orthodontic clinical needs. Printing orientation was more important than printer type regarding its accuracy. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of direct printed appliances clinically.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"657-663"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11493428/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/120823-812.1","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

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of printer technology and print orientation on the accuracy of directly printed retainers.

Materials and methods: Digital retainers were printed with two different printing technologies: digital light processing (DLP) and stereolithography (SLA), using two different orientations: 0° and 90°. After printing, the retainers (n = 40) were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography. The DICOM files were then converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. Comparison of the printed retainers with a master file was done by superimposition using a three-dimensional (3D) best-fit tool in Geomagic software. A ±0.25 mm tolerance was set to detect differences between the superimposed files. Statistical analysis was conducted (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, with Bonferroni correction).

Results: The lowest median average deviation was observed for the DLP horizontally printed models (median, [interquartile range (IQR)] = 0.01 mm, [-0.01, 0.02]) followed by the SLA horizontally printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 0.05 mm, [0.03, 0.07]). The highest median inside the tolerance levels ratio was observed for the horizontally SLA printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.9%, [74.4, 82.4%]) followed by the horizontally DLP printed retainers (median, [IQR] = 78.2%, [74.5, 80.7%]).

Conclusions: Both technologies (DLP and SLA) showed 3D printed results compatible with orthodontic clinical needs. Printing orientation was more important than printer type regarding its accuracy. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of direct printed appliances clinically.

印刷技术和方向对三维印刷保持器精度的影响。
目的:评估打印机技术和打印方向对直接打印固位体精度的影响:评估打印机技术和打印方向对直接打印固位体精度的影响:使用两种不同的打印技术:数字光处理 (DLP) 和立体光刻 (SLA),以两种不同的方向打印数字保持器:0°和 90°。打印完成后,使用锥形束计算机断层扫描对固位体(n = 40)进行扫描。然后将 DICOM 文件转换为标准细分语言 (STL) 文件。通过使用 Geomagic 软件中的三维 (3D) 最佳拟合工具进行叠加,将打印出的固位体与主文件进行比较。为检测叠加文件之间的差异,设定了 ±0.25 毫米的公差。进行了统计分析(Kruskal-Wallis 和 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney 检验,Bonferroni 校正):DLP水平打印模型的平均偏差中值最小(中值,[四分位数间距(IQR)] = 0.01毫米,[-0.01,0.02]),其次是SLA水平打印固位体(中值,[四分位数间距(IQR)] = 0.05毫米,[0.03,0.07])。水平 SLA 印刷保持架的公差水平内比率中位数最高(中位数,[IQR] = 78.9%,[74.4, 82.4%]),其次是水平 DLP 印刷保持架(中位数,[IQR] = 78.2%,[74.5, 80.7%]):结论:两种技术(DLP 和 SLA)都显示出符合正畸临床需求的 3D 打印结果。在精确度方面,打印方向比打印机类型更重要。需要进行更多的研究来评估直接打印矫治器在临床上的准确性。
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