PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models manufactured using two different printer technologies with different model base designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary typodont was scanned using a desktop scanner to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file as a reference scan. After the scanning procedure, the STL file was exported to Model Builder™ for designing the following two types of the model bases: a solid base design and a hollow base design with a 2.0 mm thickness of the external shell. Each design was printed to produce 10 models using a Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) printer and a Digital Light Processing (DLP) printer. The following four groups were tested: CLIP with solid base (CS); CLIP with hollow base (CH); DLP with solid base (DS); and DLP with hollow base (DH). A total of 40 models were scanned using the same desktop scanner to generate the STL files for evaluation of the accuracy by evaluation of trueness and precision. All STL files were superimposed with the control STL file via surface matching software and a comparison was performed using the 3D color mapping function and a 2D comparison of 48 points selected on the tested model. The data were collected by measuring the deviation between the tested model and the reference scan. Trueness was calculated by using the comparison among four tested groups. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis was conducted to assess the overall statistical significance of differences among the tested groups (α = 0.05). For precision measurement, the evaluation was conducted using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) value at 95% confident interval to determine the deviation within the same tested groups. RESULTS: The median values for the deviated distance of the four tested groups were 0.045 (CH), 0.035 (CS), 0.077 (DH), and 0.077 mm (DS). There were no statistically significant differences between the trueness of the two groups when using the same printers regardless of the designs of model base (p > 0.05). However, when comparing the two printers using the same model base design and the two different designs of model base, there were statistically significant differences in trueness (p < 0.05). The 3D printed models created using CLIP technology had higher trueness than the DLP technology printer. Precision of the 3D printed model was displayed in ICC value. The ICC values of four tested groups were 0.968 (CH), 0.981 (CS), 0.969 (DH), and 0.983 (DS). All tested groups were classified as exhibiting an excellent level of precision based on 95% confident interval of the ICC estimation. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of 3D printed models was affected by the printer technology regardless of whether the model base was solid or hollow. The CLIP technology printer produced significantly less variation from the reference model than the DLP printer. However, all of the 3D printed models were determined to exhibit a clinically acceptable level of accuracy based on the recorded dimensions being less than 100 µm different than the reference model.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed models manufactured using two different printer technologies with different model base designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary typodont was scanned using a desktop scanner to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file as a reference scan. After the scanning procedure, the STL file was exported to Model Builder™ for designing the following two types of the model bases: a solid base design and a hollow base design with a 2.0 mm thickness of the external shell. Each design was printed to produce 10 models using a Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) printer and a Digital Light Processing (DLP) printer. The following four groups were tested: CLIP with solid base (CS); CLIP with hollow base (CH); DLP with solid base (DS); and DLP with hollow base (DH). A total of 40 models were scanned using the same desktop scanner to generate the STL files for evaluation of the accuracy by evaluation of trueness and precision. All STL files were superimposed with the control STL file via surface matching software and a comparison was performed using the 3D color mapping function and a 2D comparison of 48 points selected on the tested model. The data were collected by measuring the deviation between the tested model and the reference scan. Trueness was calculated by using the comparison among four tested groups. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis was conducted to assess the overall statistical significance of differences among the tested groups (α = 0.05). For precision measurement, the evaluation was conducted using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) value at 95% confident interval to determine the deviation within the same tested groups. RESULTS: The median values for the deviated distance of the four tested groups were 0.045 (CH), 0.035 (CS), 0.077 (DH), and 0.077 mm (DS). There were no statistically significant differences between the trueness of the two groups when using the same printers regardless of the designs of model base (p > 0.05). However, when comparing the two printers using the same model base design and the two different designs of model base, there were statistically significant differences in trueness (p < 0.05). The 3D printed models created using CLIP technology had higher trueness than the DLP technology printer. Precision of the 3D printed model was displayed in ICC value. The ICC values of four tested groups were 0.968 (CH), 0.981 (CS), 0.969 (DH), and 0.983 (DS). All tested groups were classified as exhibiting an excellent level of precision based on 95% confident interval of the ICC estimation. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of 3D printed models was affected by the printer technology regardless of whether the model base was solid or hollow. The CLIP technology printer produced significantly less variation from the reference model than the DLP printer. However, all of the 3D printed models were determined to exhibit a clinically acceptable level of accuracy based on the recorded dimensions being less than 100 µm different than the reference model.
Authors: Carina Hopfner; Andre Jakob; Anja Tengler; Maximilian Grab; Nikolaus Thierfelder; Barbara Brunner; Alisa Thierij; Nikolaus A Haas Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2021-08-31
Authors: Tamas Hegedus; Patrik Kreuter; Aron Attila Kismarczi-Antalffy; Tamas Demeter; Dorottya Banyai; Adam Vegh; Zoltan Geczi; Peter Hermann; Michael Payer; Akos Zsembery; Ahmad Al-Hassiny; Khaled Mukaddam; Valentin Herber; Norbert Jakse; Daniel Vegh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 3.390