Comparing the accuracy of 3D-printed casts versus plaster casts for tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations.

Q2 Dentistry
Dental Research Journal Pub Date : 2025-04-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/drj.drj_382_24
Hedie Derakhshi, Mohammad Alihemmati, Seyed Mohammad Reza Hakimaneh, Mohammad Amin Bafandeh, Maryam Jahangiri, Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh
{"title":"Comparing the accuracy of 3D-printed casts versus plaster casts for tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations.","authors":"Hedie Derakhshi, Mohammad Alihemmati, Seyed Mohammad Reza Hakimaneh, Mohammad Amin Bafandeh, Maryam Jahangiri, Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh","doi":"10.4103/drj.drj_382_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of 3D printers in dentistry is expected to increase in the future. However, there is limited information available on the accuracy of dental 3D printers for creating dental and implant models. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of 3D-printed casts and traditional plaster casts for the fabrication of tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study involved a dental model with implant analogs placed at the sites of the right first premolar and molar for an implant-supported bridge and the left first premolar and molar that received preparation for a tooth-supported bridge. Addition silicone impressions were made and poured with dental stone to create 10 plaster casts. The model was scanned using an intraoral scanner, and 20 casts were 3D-printed using digital light processing (DLP) and liquid crystal display (LCD) printers (10 casts for each method). All 30 casts, including the reference model, were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the obtained Standard Triangle Language files were superimposed in Geomagic software. Data analysis revealed violations of normality and homogeneity of variances. As a result, the Kruskal-Wallis <i>H</i> test, a nonparametric method, was employed to compare root mean square (1 RMS = 100 μm) values across three groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 27. RMS values were calculated (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RMS value was significantly lower in the conventional plaster cast group compared to the LCD group (<i>P</i> = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference between the LCD and DLP groups (<i>P</i> = 0.214) or between the conventional and DLP groups (<i>P</i> = 0.345). The interdental distance in the conventional group was significantly lower than that in the 3D-printed groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two printing methods (<i>P</i> = 0.31). The interimplant distance was lower in the 3D-printed groups compared to the conventional group, and this difference was significant between the DLP and conventional groups (<i>P</i> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although plaster casts demonstrated higher accuracy, 3D-printed casts using additive technology yielded accurate results within the clinically acceptable range (<200 μm).</p>","PeriodicalId":11016,"journal":{"name":"Dental Research Journal","volume":"22 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/drj.drj_382_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of 3D printers in dentistry is expected to increase in the future. However, there is limited information available on the accuracy of dental 3D printers for creating dental and implant models. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of 3D-printed casts and traditional plaster casts for the fabrication of tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations.

Materials and methods: This in vitro study involved a dental model with implant analogs placed at the sites of the right first premolar and molar for an implant-supported bridge and the left first premolar and molar that received preparation for a tooth-supported bridge. Addition silicone impressions were made and poured with dental stone to create 10 plaster casts. The model was scanned using an intraoral scanner, and 20 casts were 3D-printed using digital light processing (DLP) and liquid crystal display (LCD) printers (10 casts for each method). All 30 casts, including the reference model, were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the obtained Standard Triangle Language files were superimposed in Geomagic software. Data analysis revealed violations of normality and homogeneity of variances. As a result, the Kruskal-Wallis H test, a nonparametric method, was employed to compare root mean square (1 RMS = 100 μm) values across three groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 27. RMS values were calculated (P < 0.05).

Results: The RMS value was significantly lower in the conventional plaster cast group compared to the LCD group (P = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference between the LCD and DLP groups (P = 0.214) or between the conventional and DLP groups (P = 0.345). The interdental distance in the conventional group was significantly lower than that in the 3D-printed groups (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two printing methods (P = 0.31). The interimplant distance was lower in the 3D-printed groups compared to the conventional group, and this difference was significant between the DLP and conventional groups (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: Although plaster casts demonstrated higher accuracy, 3D-printed casts using additive technology yielded accurate results within the clinically acceptable range (<200 μm).

比较3d打印模型与石膏模型在牙齿支持和种植体支持修复中的准确性。
背景:3D打印机在牙科领域的应用有望在未来增加。然而,关于牙科3D打印机用于创建牙科和种植体模型的准确性的信息有限。本研究旨在比较3d打印模型和传统石膏模型的准确性,用于制造牙齿支持和种植体支持的修复体。材料和方法:在体外研究中,将种植体类似物放置在右侧第一前臼齿和磨牙的位置,用于种植支撑桥,并将左侧第一前臼齿和磨牙用于准备牙齿支撑桥。此外,硅胶印痕被制成,并浇上牙科石,以创建10石膏模型。使用口腔内扫描仪扫描模型,并使用数字光处理(DLP)和液晶显示(LCD)打印机3d打印20个模型(每种方法10个模型)。使用实验室扫描仪对包括参考模型在内的所有30个铸型进行扫描,并在Geomagic软件中叠加得到的标准三角语言文件。数据分析揭示了方差的违反正态性和同质性。结果,采用非参数方法Kruskal-Wallis H检验比较三组的均方根(1 RMS = 100 μm)值。所有统计分析均使用SPSS version 27进行。计算均方根值(RMS) (P < 0.05)。结果:常规石膏铸造组RMS值明显低于LCD组(P = 0.002)。然而,LCD组与DLP组之间无显著差异(P = 0.214),常规组与DLP组之间无显著差异(P = 0.345)。常规组牙间距离显著低于3d打印组(P < 0.05),两种打印方式间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.31)。3d打印组种植体间距离低于常规组,DLP组与常规组差异有统计学意义(P = 0.02)。结论:尽管石膏模型具有更高的准确性,但使用添加剂技术的3d打印模型在临床可接受的范围内获得了准确的结果(
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
Dental Research Journal
Dental Research Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊介绍: Dental Research Journal, a publication of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Bimonthly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.drjjournal.net. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Dentistry. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信