Taehun Kim1, Sangwook Lee1, Guk Bae Kim2, Dayeong Hong1, Jinhee Kwon1, Jae-Woo Park3, Namkug Kim4. 1. Graduate student, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Postdoctoral Researcher, ANYMEDI Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Orthodontics Attending, Department of Orthodontics, Kooalldam Dental Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Convergence Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: namkugkim@gmail.com.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of 3D printing technology is essential for clinical applications. However, depending on the 3D printing method, machine, and environment, the accuracy varies even if the same computer-aided design (CAD) model is printed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the differences between the CAD model and the printed parts with a simplified guide designed based on the implant guide and to compare the accuracy among 3 types of 3D printers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A maxilla and mandible implant guide made of complex anatomic structures is difficult to measure accurately. For accurate measurements, 16 simplified guides were designed based on the maxilla and mandible implant guide. The 16 simplified guides were fabricated by using the following 3 different 3D printer technologies: photopolymer jetting (PolyJet), stereolithography apparatus (SLA), and multijet printing (MJP). Each simplified guide was measured 4 times with digital calipers for 20 linear measurements. The measured simplified guides were compared with the CAD model, and the accuracy of the 3D printers was compared. The mean absolute difference and mean relative difference were calculated, and the Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the limits of agreement between the CAD model and the printed parts. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to evaluate the significant differences among the 3D printers (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean absolute difference and the mean relative difference between the CAD model and the 3D-printed parts were 0.06 ±0.05 mm (0.46 ±0.51%) for PolyJet, 0.09 ±0.05 mm (0.66 ±0.62%) for SLA, and 0.31 ±0.33 mm (1.11 ±0.70%) for MJP. When the 3D printers were compared, significant differences were found between SLA and MJP (P=.006) and between PolyJet and MJP (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: When the CAD models and the 3D-printed parts of the simplified implant guides were compared, significant accuracy differences were observed. The PolyJet and SLA 3D printers met the required accuracy for clinical applications in dentistry. The most suitable 3D printer, however, should be selected considering all factors.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of 3D printing technology is essential for clinical applications. However, depending on the 3D printing method, machine, and environment, the accuracy varies even if the same computer-aided design (CAD) model is printed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the differences between the CAD model and the printed parts with a simplified guide designed based on the implant guide and to compare the accuracy among 3 types of 3D printers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A maxilla and mandible implant guide made of complex anatomic structures is difficult to measure accurately. For accurate measurements, 16 simplified guides were designed based on the maxilla and mandible implant guide. The 16 simplified guides were fabricated by using the following 3 different 3D printer technologies: photopolymer jetting (PolyJet), stereolithography apparatus (SLA), and multijet printing (MJP). Each simplified guide was measured 4 times with digital calipers for 20 linear measurements. The measured simplified guides were compared with the CAD model, and the accuracy of the 3D printers was compared. The mean absolute difference and mean relative difference were calculated, and the Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the limits of agreement between the CAD model and the printed parts. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to evaluate the significant differences among the 3D printers (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean absolute difference and the mean relative difference between the CAD model and the 3D-printed parts were 0.06 ±0.05 mm (0.46 ±0.51%) for PolyJet, 0.09 ±0.05 mm (0.66 ±0.62%) for SLA, and 0.31 ±0.33 mm (1.11 ±0.70%) for MJP. When the 3D printers were compared, significant differences were found between SLA and MJP (P=.006) and between PolyJet and MJP (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: When the CAD models and the 3D-printed parts of the simplified implant guides were compared, significant accuracy differences were observed. The PolyJet and SLA 3D printers met the required accuracy for clinical applications in dentistry. The most suitable 3D printer, however, should be selected considering all factors.
Authors: Neha Sharma; Shuaishuai Cao; Bilal Msallem; Christoph Kunz; Philipp Brantner; Philipp Honigmann; Florian M Thieringer Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 4.241