Effect of print orientation on the dimensional accuracy of three-dimensional-printed complete denture models: A comparative analysis of VAT photopolymerization and fused deposition modeling technologies.
{"title":"Effect of print orientation on the dimensional accuracy of three-dimensional-printed complete denture models: A comparative analysis of VAT photopolymerization and fused deposition modeling technologies.","authors":"Neeraj Kumar Chandraker, Gopi Naveen Chander, Rajendra Kumar Dubey","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_334_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the effect of print orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°) on the dimensional accuracy, precision, and production parameters of three-dimensional (3D) printed complete denture models fabricated using VAT photopolymerization and fused deposition modeling (FDM) technologies.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>An in-vitro experimental comparative study was conducted to analyze orientation-dependent variations in dimensional trueness and precision among denture models fabricated with two additive manufacturing systems.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A complete denture prosthesis STL file was fabricated in 60 samples using VAT photopolymerization and FDM technologies across three orientations (0°, 45°, and 90°). Printed models underwent postprocessing, followed by digital superimposition to evaluate trueness and precision.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference tests and independent t-tests for intertechnology comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VAT prints demonstrated higher average accuracy (mean deviation: 0.1106 mm) but greater variability (standard deviation [SD] =0.2448 mm) than FDM (mean deviation: 0.0316 mm, SD = 0.1558 mm). Across both technologies, the 0° orientation showed the least deviation (VAT: 0.1106 mm and FDM: 0.0316 mm). ANOVA indicated no significant differences among orientations (P = 0.109), whereas t-tests revealed substantial differences between technologies (t = 16.46, P < 0.00001). FDM at 90° exhibited the lowest variability (SD = 0.1163 mm), suggesting a trend toward improved consistency, though this did not reach statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Print orientation influenced dimensional accuracy trends, but only technology type showed statistically significant differences. VAT photopolymerization is suitable for high-precision applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"26 1","pages":"24-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12912512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_334_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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
Aim: To evaluate the effect of print orientation (0°, 45°, and 90°) on the dimensional accuracy, precision, and production parameters of three-dimensional (3D) printed complete denture models fabricated using VAT photopolymerization and fused deposition modeling (FDM) technologies.
Settings and design: An in-vitro experimental comparative study was conducted to analyze orientation-dependent variations in dimensional trueness and precision among denture models fabricated with two additive manufacturing systems.
Materials and methods: A complete denture prosthesis STL file was fabricated in 60 samples using VAT photopolymerization and FDM technologies across three orientations (0°, 45°, and 90°). Printed models underwent postprocessing, followed by digital superimposition to evaluate trueness and precision.
Statistical analysis used: Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference tests and independent t-tests for intertechnology comparison.
Results: VAT prints demonstrated higher average accuracy (mean deviation: 0.1106 mm) but greater variability (standard deviation [SD] =0.2448 mm) than FDM (mean deviation: 0.0316 mm, SD = 0.1558 mm). Across both technologies, the 0° orientation showed the least deviation (VAT: 0.1106 mm and FDM: 0.0316 mm). ANOVA indicated no significant differences among orientations (P = 0.109), whereas t-tests revealed substantial differences between technologies (t = 16.46, P < 0.00001). FDM at 90° exhibited the lowest variability (SD = 0.1163 mm), suggesting a trend toward improved consistency, though this did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion: Print orientation influenced dimensional accuracy trends, but only technology type showed statistically significant differences. VAT photopolymerization is suitable for high-precision applications.