OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modeling (FDM)-, Polyjet-, and stereolithography (SLA)-produced models by comparing them to traditional plaster casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 maxillary and mandibular posttreatment orthodontic plaster casts were selected from the archives of the Orthodontic Department at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. Plaster models were scanned, saved as stereolithography files, and printed as physical models using three different three-dimensional (3D) printers: Makerbot Replicator (FDM), 3D Systems SLA 6000 (SLA), and Objet Eden500V (Polyjet). A digital caliper was used to obtain measurements on the original plaster models as well as on the printed resin models. RESULTS: Comparison between the 3D printed models and the plaster casts showed no statistically significant differences in most of the parameters. However, FDM was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in maxillary left mixed plane (MxL-MP) and mandibular intermolar width (Md-IMW). Polyjet was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in maxillary intercanine width (Mx-ICW), mandibular intercanine width (Md-ICW), and mandibular left mixed plane (MdL-MP). Polyjet was significantly lower on average than were plaster casts in maxillary right vertical plane (MxR-vertical), maxillary left vertical plane (MxL-vertical), mandibular right anteroposterior plane (MdR-AP), mandibular right vertical plane (MdR-vertical), and mandibular left vertical plane (MdL-vertical). SLA was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in MxL-MP, Md-ICW, and overbite. SLA was significantly lower on average than were plaster casts in MdR-vertical and MdL-vertical. CONCLUSIONS: Dental models reconstructed by FDM technology had the fewest dimensional measurement differences compared to plaster models.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modeling (FDM)-, Polyjet-, and stereolithography (SLA)-produced models by comparing them to traditional plaster casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 maxillary and mandibular posttreatment orthodontic plaster casts were selected from the archives of the Orthodontic Department at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. Plaster models were scanned, saved as stereolithography files, and printed as physical models using three different three-dimensional (3D) printers: Makerbot Replicator (FDM), 3D Systems SLA 6000 (SLA), and Objet Eden500V (Polyjet). A digital caliper was used to obtain measurements on the original plaster models as well as on the printed resin models. RESULTS: Comparison between the 3D printed models and the plaster casts showed no statistically significant differences in most of the parameters. However, FDM was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in maxillary left mixed plane (MxL-MP) and mandibular intermolar width (Md-IMW). Polyjet was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in maxillary intercanine width (Mx-ICW), mandibular intercanine width (Md-ICW), and mandibular left mixed plane (MdL-MP). Polyjet was significantly lower on average than were plaster casts in maxillary right vertical plane (MxR-vertical), maxillary left vertical plane (MxL-vertical), mandibular right anteroposterior plane (MdR-AP), mandibular right vertical plane (MdR-vertical), and mandibular left vertical plane (MdL-vertical). SLA was significantly higher on average than were plaster casts in MxL-MP, Md-ICW, and overbite. SLA was significantly lower on average than were plaster casts in MdR-vertical and MdL-vertical. CONCLUSIONS: Dental models reconstructed by FDM technology had the fewest dimensional measurement differences compared to plaster models.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D printing; Orthodontic models; Prototyping technology
Authors: J S Casko; J L Vaden; V G Kokich; J Damone; R D James; T J Cangialosi; M L Riolo; S E Owens; E D Bills Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Trevor J Snyder; Mike Andrews; Mark Weislogel; Peter Moeck; Jennifer Stone-Sundberg; Derek Birkes; Madeline Paige Hoffert; Adam Lindeman; Jeff Morrill; Ondrej Fercak; Sasha Friedman; Jeff Gunderson; Anh Ha; Jack McCollister; Yongkang Chen; John Geile; Andrew Wollman; Babak Attari; Nathan Botnen; Vasant Vuppuluri; Jennifer Shim; Werner Kaminsky; Dustin Adams; John Graft Journal: 3D Print Addit Manuf Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Guillermo Cabanes-Gumbau; David Soto-Peñaloza; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago; María Peñarrocha-Diago Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.241