Hui Shan Boo, Saritha Sivarajan, Norhidayah Nor Zahidah Mohd Tahir, Aufa Dahlia Bahar
{"title":"Accuracy of three-dimensionally printed retainers and aligners : A systematic review.","authors":"Hui Shan Boo, Saritha Sivarajan, Norhidayah Nor Zahidah Mohd Tahir, Aufa Dahlia Bahar","doi":"10.1007/s00056-024-00570-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the constant improvement of photopolymerizable resin, direct three-dimensional (3D) printing of retainers and aligners (R&A) has gained popularity in recent years. The primary objective of this research was to systematically evaluate the evidence regarding the accuracy of 3D-printed R&A in terms of trueness and precision (T&P).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic database searches were performed on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, and Clinicaltrial.gov through 17 November 2023. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns of the methodologic quality of the articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 in vitro studies were selected. Five studies reported the accuracy of 3D-printed retainers and another seven reported on aligners. For the 3D-printed retainer group, only Naeem et al. [1] reported both T&P and found that stereolithography (SLA) and PolyJet photopolymer (PPP) printers demonstrated higher accuracy than digital light processing (DLP) and continuous digital light processing (cDLP) printers. For the 3D-printed aligners group, only Koenig et al. [2] reported both T&P and found that 3D-printed aligners fabricated with photopolymerizable polyurethane resin demonstrated higher trueness (0.14 ± 0.020 mm) compared to conventional thermoformed aligners (0.188 ± 0.074 and 0.209 ± 0.094).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The existing digital workflow involving various printing materials, angulations, printing thickness, and printing technologies is feasible for the fabrication of direct 3D printing of R&A with variable degrees of accuracy. Most techniques worked within the clinically acceptable level of accuracy of 0.25 mm.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD 42022312907.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-024-00570-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: With the constant improvement of photopolymerizable resin, direct three-dimensional (3D) printing of retainers and aligners (R&A) has gained popularity in recent years. The primary objective of this research was to systematically evaluate the evidence regarding the accuracy of 3D-printed R&A in terms of trueness and precision (T&P).
Methods: Electronic database searches were performed on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, and Clinicaltrial.gov through 17 November 2023. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns of the methodologic quality of the articles.
Results: A total of 12 in vitro studies were selected. Five studies reported the accuracy of 3D-printed retainers and another seven reported on aligners. For the 3D-printed retainer group, only Naeem et al. [1] reported both T&P and found that stereolithography (SLA) and PolyJet photopolymer (PPP) printers demonstrated higher accuracy than digital light processing (DLP) and continuous digital light processing (cDLP) printers. For the 3D-printed aligners group, only Koenig et al. [2] reported both T&P and found that 3D-printed aligners fabricated with photopolymerizable polyurethane resin demonstrated higher trueness (0.14 ± 0.020 mm) compared to conventional thermoformed aligners (0.188 ± 0.074 and 0.209 ± 0.094).
Conclusion: The existing digital workflow involving various printing materials, angulations, printing thickness, and printing technologies is feasible for the fabrication of direct 3D printing of R&A with variable degrees of accuracy. Most techniques worked within the clinically acceptable level of accuracy of 0.25 mm.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
