PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of 6 desktop 3D printers in dentistry. METHODS: A parallelepiped (PP) with known geometry and holes of different diameters was designed and printed with 6 desktop 3D printers (Sheraprint 40®; Solflex 350®; Form 2®; MoonRay D75®; Vida HD®; XFAB 2000®). For each printer, 9 PPs were printed with proprietary materials; these PPs were not cured and underwent dimensional analysis by optical microscopy and precision probing. A file representative of a dentate model (DM) was also printed with the aforementioned printers. For each printer, 3 DMs were printed with the proprietary materials. These DMs were cured and after 1 month, scanned with a desktop scanner and superimposed on the virtual reference model, to investigate trueness. RESULTS: Dimensional analysis by optical microscopy and precision probing highlighted the reliability of the 3D printed models; errors were compatible with clinical use. However, both linear and diameter measurements revealed statistically significant differences between the machines. The trueness of the DMs 1 month after printing was low, suggesting that they underwent dimensional contraction over time, albeit with differences between the printers. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D printed models showed acceptable accuracy, although statistically significant differences were found among them.

Accuracy of 6 Desktop 3D Printers in Dentistry: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Mangano F. G.
Conceptualization
;
Farronato D.
Supervision
;
2020

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of 6 desktop 3D printers in dentistry. METHODS: A parallelepiped (PP) with known geometry and holes of different diameters was designed and printed with 6 desktop 3D printers (Sheraprint 40®; Solflex 350®; Form 2®; MoonRay D75®; Vida HD®; XFAB 2000®). For each printer, 9 PPs were printed with proprietary materials; these PPs were not cured and underwent dimensional analysis by optical microscopy and precision probing. A file representative of a dentate model (DM) was also printed with the aforementioned printers. For each printer, 3 DMs were printed with the proprietary materials. These DMs were cured and after 1 month, scanned with a desktop scanner and superimposed on the virtual reference model, to investigate trueness. RESULTS: Dimensional analysis by optical microscopy and precision probing highlighted the reliability of the 3D printed models; errors were compatible with clinical use. However, both linear and diameter measurements revealed statistically significant differences between the machines. The trueness of the DMs 1 month after printing was low, suggesting that they underwent dimensional contraction over time, albeit with differences between the printers. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D printed models showed acceptable accuracy, although statistically significant differences were found among them.
3D Printing; Accuracy; Dental Models; Digital Dentistry; Trueness; Dentistry; Reproducibility of Results; Models, Dental; Printing, Three-Dimensional
Mangano, F. G.; Admakin, O.; Bonacina, M.; Biaggini, F.; Farronato, D.; Lerner, H.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
110 Accuracy of EJPRD 2020.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 2.26 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.26 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11383/2136050
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 7
social impact