Michael Braian1, David Jönsson2, Mir Kevci3, Ann Wennerberg4. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Smedjegatan 16, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: Michael.Braian@mah.se. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Smedjegatan 16, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: david.jonsson@folktandvardenskane.se. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Smedjegatan 16, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: Lewend.kevci@folktandvarden.se. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Smedjegatan 16, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: Ann.Wennerberg@mah.se.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of objects produced by additive manufacturing systems (AM) for use in dentistry and to compare with subtractive manufacturing systems (SM). METHODS: Ten specimens of two geometrical objects were produced by five different AM machines and one SM machine. Object A mimics an inlay-shaped object, while object B imitates a four-unit bridge model. All the objects were sorted into different measurement dimensions (x, y, z), linear distances, angles and corner radius. RESULTS: None of the additive manufacturing or subtractive manufacturing groups presented a perfect match to the CAD file with regard to all parameters included in the present study. Considering linear measurements, the precision for subtractive manufacturing group was consistent in all axes for object A, presenting results of <0.050mm. The additive manufacturing groups had consistent precision in the x-axis and y-axis but not in the z-axis. With regard to corner radius measurements, the SM group had the best overall accuracy and precision for both objects A and B when compared to the AM groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the conclusion can be made that subtractive manufacturing presented overall precision on all measurements below 0.050mm. The AM machines also presented fairly good precision, <0.150mm, on all axes except for the z-axis. Knowledge regarding accuracy and precision for different production techniques utilized in dentistry is of great clinical importance. The dental community has moved from casting to milling and additive techniques are now being implemented. Thus all these production techniques need to be tested, compared and validated.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of objects produced by additive manufacturing systems (AM) for use in dentistry and to compare with subtractive manufacturing systems (SM). METHODS: Ten specimens of two geometrical objects were produced by five different AM machines and one SM machine. Object A mimics an inlay-shaped object, while object B imitates a four-unit bridge model. All the objects were sorted into different measurement dimensions (x, y, z), linear distances, angles and corner radius. RESULTS: None of the additive manufacturing or subtractive manufacturing groups presented a perfect match to the CAD file with regard to all parameters included in the present study. Considering linear measurements, the precision for subtractive manufacturing group was consistent in all axes for object A, presenting results of <0.050mm. The additive manufacturing groups had consistent precision in the x-axis and y-axis but not in the z-axis. With regard to corner radius measurements, the SM group had the best overall accuracy and precision for both objects A and B when compared to the AM groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the conclusion can be made that subtractive manufacturing presented overall precision on all measurements below 0.050mm. The AM machines also presented fairly good precision, <0.150mm, on all axes except for the z-axis. Knowledge regarding accuracy and precision for different production techniques utilized in dentistry is of great clinical importance. The dental community has moved from casting to milling and additive techniques are now being implemented. Thus all these production techniques need to be tested, compared and validated.