Comparative Analysis of Fused Deposition Modeling and Digital Light Processing Techniques for Dimensional Accuracy in Clear Aligner Manufacturing.
Journal
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research
ISSN: 1643-3750
Titre abrégé: Med Sci Monit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9609063
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Aug 2023
03 Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
4
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy for printing dental models used for the manufacture of clear dental aligners. MATERIAL AND METHODS Based on the intraoral scan of an adult patient, a sequence of 10 aligner models was created using BlueSkyPlan4. The test models (n=30) were fabricated with 2 desktop 3D printers: (DLP) and (FDM) printers. Two groups of samples were created (digitized using a desktop optical scanner). To calculate trueness (n=20) and precision (n=10), printed models were compared to the source files (REF). REF, DLP, and FDM files were superimposed and converted to point clouds. The cloud-to-cloud distances were calculated using CloudCompare software. Using the same algorithm, distortions of models were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS Significant differences were found between the trueness and precision of DLP and FDM groups. The average calculated trueness of DLP and FDM was 0.096 mm (0.021) (P<0.001) and 0.063 mm (0.024) (P<0.001), respectively. The average calculated precision of DLP and FDM was 0.027 mm (0.003) (P<0.001) and 0.036 mm (0.003) (P<0.001), respectively. A widening (0.158 mmfor DLP and 0.093 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) and twisting (0.03 mmfor DLP and 0.043 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) of the printed models was observed. CONCLUSIONS Both printers had sufficient precision for aligner models manufacturing. FDM showed a higher trueness and this device can be applied as an alternative to DLP. Polymerization shrinkage is a significant factor in decreasing the trueness of DLP printers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37533235
pii: 940922
doi: 10.12659/MSM.940922
pmc: PMC10413909
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e940922Références
BDJ Open. 2022 May 26;8(1):14
pubmed: 35618716
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Sep;126(3):427-437
pubmed: 32958301
J Prosthodont Res. 2021 Aug 21;65(3):365-370
pubmed: 33177305
J Dent. 2021 Sep;112:103741
pubmed: 34224792
Materials (Basel). 2021 Apr 05;14(7):
pubmed: 33916462
J Dent. 2023 Jan;128:104387
pubmed: 36496106
Dent J (Basel). 2022 Sep 28;10(10):
pubmed: 36285991
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021 Aug;7(4):591-600
pubmed: 33258297
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Jan 10;:
pubmed: 36635136
Children (Basel). 2022 Jul 23;9(8):
pubmed: 35892609
Materials (Basel). 2021 Mar 18;14(6):
pubmed: 33803596
J Dent. 2022 Feb;117:103909
pubmed: 34852291
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jan;151(1):209-218
pubmed: 28024776
Scanning. 2021 Jul 17;2021:9950131
pubmed: 34367410
J Dent. 2022 Sep;124:104212
pubmed: 35792192
J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 20;9(10):
pubmed: 33092047