4.6 Article

Accuracy Comparison among 3D-Printing Technologies to Produce Dental Models

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app12178425

Keywords

3D-printing; computer-aided manufacturing; dental models

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the accuracy of different 3D printing technologies for dental models. The results showed that there were some differences among different 3D printers, but these differences may not be clinically relevant. Additionally, all of the studied devices performed similarly for dental casts.
Background: Little is known on accuracy comparisons among 3D-printing trueness and precision to produce dental models. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of different 3D-printing technologies (SLA; DLP; LCD poly and monochromatic; and Polyjet). Methods: Fifteen models were manufactured by the five different 3D printers used in this study. The manufactured models were physically measured in the corresponding lengths for trueness and reproducibility. Means and standard deviations were obtained for the five computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) methods and compared. Results: No significant difference was found in the comparison between observers in all measurements performed with the different model algorithms. Pairwise Wilcoxon non-parametric test comparisons of trueness between 3D-printers revealed statistically significant differences between Stratasys versus Anycubic (p = 0.025) and Anycubic versus Form 2 (p = 0.048). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the 3D-printing methods may have small significant discrepancies when compared to the original digital files, which may not be clinically relevant. In addition, there were no significant discrepancies among median measurements of each printing method (within 3D-printer analysis), which suggests that, for dental casts, all of the studied devices performed similarly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available