Owais A Naeem1, Sompop Bencharit2, Il-Hyung Yang3, Spiro Christos Stilianoudakis4, Caroline Carrico5, Eser Tüfekçi6. 1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 2. Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 3. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va; Dental Research Institute and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 5. Department of Dental Public Health and Policy, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 6. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. Electronic address: etufekci@vcu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the precision, trueness, and accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) printed clear orthodontic retainers fabricated using printer systems with different printing technologies. METHODS: Retainers (n = 15) were 3D printed using 4 different printers: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), continuous DLP, and polyjet photopolymer (PPP) printers. Printed retainers were transformed into a digital image through a cone-beam computed tomography scan and compared with the original image using 3D superimposition analysis software. At previously chosen landmarks (R6, L6, R3, L3, R1, and L1), intaglio surfaces of the retainers were compared to that of the reference model. The intercanine and the intermolar width measurements were also assessed. A discrepancy of up to 0.25 mm between the printed retainer and the reference retainer intaglio surfaces indicated accuracy and clinical acceptability. Precision and trueness were also determined. Root mean square and percent of points within the tolerance level were calculated for precision and trueness for each retainer. Statistical significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: Interrater correlation coefficient indicated good agreement. Statistically significant differences were found between printer types among the 6 landmarks and the arch width measurements. When evaluating tolerance level and root mean square, statistically significant differences in median precision and trueness among each printer type were found. CONCLUSION: Retainers fabricated by SLA, DLP, continuous DLP, and PPP technologies were shown to be clinically acceptable and accurate compared to the standard reference file. Based on both high precision and trueness, SLA and PPP printers yielded the most accurate retainers.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the precision, trueness, and accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) printed clear orthodontic retainers fabricated using printer systems with different printing technologies. METHODS: Retainers (n = 15) were 3D printed using 4 different printers: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), continuous DLP, and polyjet photopolymer (PPP) printers. Printed retainers were transformed into a digital image through a cone-beam computed tomography scan and compared with the original image using 3D superimposition analysis software. At previously chosen landmarks (R6, L6, R3, L3, R1, and L1), intaglio surfaces of the retainers were compared to that of the reference model. The intercanine and the intermolar width measurements were also assessed. A discrepancy of up to 0.25 mm between the printed retainer and the reference retainer intaglio surfaces indicated accuracy and clinical acceptability. Precision and trueness were also determined. Root mean square and percent of points within the tolerance level were calculated for precision and trueness for each retainer. Statistical significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: Interrater correlation coefficient indicated good agreement. Statistically significant differences were found between printer types among the 6 landmarks and the arch width measurements. When evaluating tolerance level and root mean square, statistically significant differences in median precision and trueness among each printer type were found. CONCLUSION: Retainers fabricated by SLA, DLP, continuous DLP, and PPP technologies were shown to be clinically acceptable and accurate compared to the standard reference file. Based on both high precision and trueness, SLA and PPP printers yielded the most accurate retainers.