In vitro accuracies of 3D printed models manufactured by two different printing technologies.

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Faruk Emir, Gulsum Ceylan, Simel Ayyildiz
{"title":"In vitro accuracies of 3D printed models manufactured by two different printing technologies.","authors":"Faruk Emir,&nbsp;Gulsum Ceylan,&nbsp;Simel Ayyildiz","doi":"10.26650/eor.20210060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare the accuracies of full-arch models printed by two different 3D printing technologies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A mandibular horseshoe-shaped master model was designed with RapidForm XOR2 software The master model was printed 10 times with 3D printers using direct light processing (DLP) and PolyJet technology (n=20). The printed models were then scanned with an industrial scanner and saved in STL file. All digital models superimposed with the master model STL file and comparison of the trueness was performed using Geomagic Control 3D analysis software. The precision was calculated by superimposing combinations of the 10 data sets in each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trueness of printed models was 46 µm for the DLP printer and 51 µm for PolyJet printer; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.155). The precision of printed models was 43 µm for the DLP printer and 54 µm for PolyJet printer. DLP printed models were more precise than the PolyJet printed models (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 3D printing technologies showed significant differences in the trueness of full-arch measurements. Although DLP printed models had better trueness than PolyJet printed models, all of the 3D printed models were clinically acceptable and might be used for the production of fixed restorations.</p>","PeriodicalId":41993,"journal":{"name":"European Oral Research","volume":"55 2","pages":"80-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/57/88/eor-055-080.PMC8244942.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20210060","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: 2

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to compare the accuracies of full-arch models printed by two different 3D printing technologies.

Materials and methods: A mandibular horseshoe-shaped master model was designed with RapidForm XOR2 software The master model was printed 10 times with 3D printers using direct light processing (DLP) and PolyJet technology (n=20). The printed models were then scanned with an industrial scanner and saved in STL file. All digital models superimposed with the master model STL file and comparison of the trueness was performed using Geomagic Control 3D analysis software. The precision was calculated by superimposing combinations of the 10 data sets in each group.

Results: The trueness of printed models was 46 µm for the DLP printer and 51 µm for PolyJet printer; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.155). The precision of printed models was 43 µm for the DLP printer and 54 µm for PolyJet printer. DLP printed models were more precise than the PolyJet printed models (p<0.001).

Conclusion: The 3D printing technologies showed significant differences in the trueness of full-arch measurements. Although DLP printed models had better trueness than PolyJet printed models, all of the 3D printed models were clinically acceptable and might be used for the production of fixed restorations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

通过两种不同的打印技术制造的3D打印模型的体外精度。
目的:比较两种不同3D打印技术打印的全拱模型的精度。材料与方法:采用RapidForm XOR2软件设计下颌骨马蹄形主模型,采用直接光处理(DLP)和PolyJet技术,用3D打印机打印10次主模型(n=20)。然后用工业扫描仪扫描打印的模型并保存在STL文件中。利用Geomagic Control三维分析软件对所有数字模型与主模型STL文件进行叠加,并对真实感进行比较。精确度是通过叠加每组10个数据集的组合来计算的。结果:DLP打印机打印出的模型正确率为46µm, PolyJet打印机为51µm;但差异无统计学意义(p=0.155)。DLP打印机的打印精度为43µm, PolyJet打印机的打印精度为54µm。DLP打印模型比PolyJet打印模型精度更高(结论:3D打印技术在全弓测量的准确性上存在显著差异。虽然DLP打印模型的真实度优于PolyJet打印模型,但所有3D打印模型在临床上都是可以接受的,可以用于固定修复体的制作。
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
European Oral Research
European Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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