4.0 Article

Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 245-251

出版社

KOREAN ACAD PROSTHODONTICS
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245

关键词

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system; Milling; 3D printing; CAD reference model

资金

  1. Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) under Industrial Technology Innovation Program [10062635]
  2. Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) - Korea government (MSIP) [B0101-17-1081]
  3. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10062635] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To evaluate the accuracy of a model made using the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) milling method and 3D printing method and to confirm its applicability as a work model for dental prosthesis production. MATERIALS AND METHODS. First, a natural tooth model (ANA-4, Frasaco, Germany) was scanned using an oral scanner. The obtained scan data were then used as a CAD reference model (CRM), to produce a total of 10 models each, either using the milling method or the 3D printing method. The 20 models were then scanned using a desktop scanner and the CAD test model was formed. The accuracy of the two groups was compared using dedicated software to calculate the root mean square (RMS) value after superimposing CRM and CAD test model (CTM). RESULTS. The RMS value (152 +/- 52 mu m) of the model manufactured by the milling method was significantly higher than the RMS value (52 +/- 9 mu m) of the model produced by the 3D printing method. CONCLUSION. The accuracy of the 3D printing method is superior to that of the milling method, but at present, both methods are limited in their application as a work model for prosthesis manufacture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据