Keywords
Dental impression technique
Dental models
Esthetics, Dental
Printing, three-dimensional
Technology, dental
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision)of cost-accessible three-dimensional (3D) printed models.Methods: A maxillary typodont (MM) was scanned andprinted 10 times in polylactic acid, resulting in 10 digitalmodels (DMs). Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were made toobtain 10 conventional stone models (SMs). All models werescanned and imported to CloudCompare software. The totalarea and three locations of interest were evaluated (zenith toincisal [Z-I], canine to canine [C-C], and first molar to canine[1M-C] distances). Total area evaluations were performed byaligning the MM and experimental models using the best-fitalgorithm and were compared using the Haussdorf distance.The distances between points of interest were measured usingthe point-picking tool at the same 3D coordinates. The meanvolumetric deviations were considered for trueness analysis.Precision was set as the standard deviation. Statisticaldifferences were evaluated using the Student’s t-test. Results:Total area volumetric comparisons showed that DMs showedsuperior trueness and precision (-0.02 ± 0.03) compared tothe SMs (0.37 ± 0.29) (P < 0.001). No differences between themodels were observed for Z-I (P = .155); however, SMs showedfewer deviations for C-C (P = .035) and 1M-C (P = .001) thanDMs. Conclusions: The DMs presented superior trueness andprecision for total area compared to the SMs; however, the SMswere more accurate when points of interest were evaluated.
References
Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug 30;26(3):101-21. doi: 10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21.
Brown GB, Currier GF, Kadioglu O, Kierl JP. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154(5):733-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.06.009.
Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H. Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(6):1178-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.012.
Cheng CW, Ye SY, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P, Ko CC. Randomized clinical trial of a conventional and a digital workflow for the fabrication of interim crowns: an evaluation of treatment efficiency, fit, and the effect of clinician experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Feb 11:S0022-3913(18)31031-X. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.006.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116(2):184-90.e12. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017.
Dawood A, Marti Marti B, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J. 2015;219(11):521-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.914.
Dev S, Srivastava R. Experimental investigation and optimization of FDM process parameters for material and mechanical strength. Mater Today Proc. 2020 ;26(2):1995-9. doi :10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.435.
Gjelvold B, Mahmood DJH, Wennerberg A. Accuracy of surgical guides from 2 different desktop 3D printers for computed tomography-guided surgery. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(3):498-503. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.009.
International organization for standardization. ISO-5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: general principles and definitions. 1994.
Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun;115(6):749-54. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004.
Morris RS, Hoye LN, Elnagar MH, Atsawasuwan P, Galang-Boquiren MT, Caplin J, et al. Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D digital dental models using photograph and video mode. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Sep;156(3):420-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.02.014.
Muric A, Gokcen Röhlig B, Ongul D, Evlioglu G. Comparing the precision of reproducibility of computer-aided occlusal design to conventional methods. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(1):110-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.10.002.
Pei E, Shen J, Watling J. Direct 3D printing of polymers onto textiles: experimental studies and applications. Rapid Prototyp J. 2015;21(5):556-71. doi :10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0126.
Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA. Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study. Angle Orthod. 2018 May;88(3):363-369. doi: 10.2319/071117-460.1.
Rungrojwittayakul O, Kan JY, Shiozaki K, Swamidass RS, Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, et al. Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base. J Prosthodont. 2020 Feb;29(2):124-128. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13107.
Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Jan;63(1):25-30. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002.
Taczała J, Czepułkowska W, Konieczny B, Sokołowski J, Kozakiewicz M, Szymor P. Comparison of 3D printing MJP and FDM technology in dentistry. Arch Mater Sci Eng. 2020;101(1):32.40. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0013.9504.
The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.
Downloads
