Evaluation of the fused deposition modeling and the digital light processing techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy of printing dental models used for the fabrication of clear aligners

Samer T Jaber, Mohammad Y Hajeer, Tarek Z Khattab, Luai Mahaini, Samer T Jaber, Mohammad Y Hajeer, Tarek Z Khattab, Luai Mahaini

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of physical reproductions of plaster orthodontic study casts fabricated by two different rapid prototyping techniques: Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Digital Light Processing (DLP).

Materials and methods: Twenty pairs of pretreatment plaster models were prepared from randomly selected patients at the Orthodontic Department, University of Damascus Dental School. Twenty-one reference points were placed on plaster models, followed by scanning and printing of these models using FDM and DLP techniques. Forty measurements were made on these models using a digital caliper. Paired t tests were used to detect significant differences in the measurements between the 3D printed replicas and the original plaster models (Gold Standard). Alpha level was adjusted due to the multiplicity of the tests.

Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients for all the comparisons made between the 3D replicas and the gold standard models were greater than 0.80 with ICCs ranging from 0.802 to 0.990 and from 0.853 to 0.990 for the FDM and DLP techniques, respectively. This indicated an excellent agreement. No statistically significant differences could be detected between the 3D-printed models and their corresponding plaster models. The overall mean difference was -0.11 mm and 0.00 ranging from -0.49 to 0.17 mm and from -0.42 to 0.50 mm, for the FDM and DLP techniques, respectively.

Conclusion: The accuracy of the 3D models produced by the DLP and FDM techniques was acceptable. However, for the fabrication of clear aligners, the optimum fit of the produced plates in the patients' mouths is not completely guaranteed.

Keywords: 3D printed models; digital light processing; fused deposition modeling; orthodontic models.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
A study model with the reference points attached to it
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The 3D model scanner used in the study
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Printers used in the current investigation: The DLP 3D printer (a), The FDM 3D printer (b)
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Examples of printed models: using the DLP technique (a), using the FDM technique (b)

References

    1. Barker, T., Earwaker, W., & Lisle, D. (1994). Accuracy of stereolithographic models of human anatomy. Australasian Radiology, 38, 106–111.
    1. Beguma, Z., & Chhedat, P. (2014). Rapid prototyping–when virtual meets reality. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 17, 297–306.
    1. Bell, A., Ayoub, A., & Siebert, P. (2003). Assessment of the accuracy of a three‐dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. Journal of Orthodontics, 30, 219–223.
    1. Brown, G. B., Currier, G. F., Kadioglu, O., & Kierl, J. P. (2018). Accuracy of 3‐dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 154, 733–739.
    1. Burzynski, J. A., Firestone, A. R., Beck, F. M., Fields, H. W., Jr., & Deguchi, T. (2018). Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 153, 534–541.
    1. Cole, D., Bencharit, S., Carrico, C. K., Arias, A., & Tüfekçi, E. (2019). Evaluation of fit for 3D‐printed retainers compared with thermoform retainers. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 155, 592–599.
    1. Dietrich, C. A., Ender, A., Baumgartner, S., & Mehl, A. (2017). A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by two technologies. The Angle Orthodontist, 87, 782–787.
    1. Hajeer, M. (2014). Assessment of dental arches in patients with class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions using 3D digital models in a Syrian sample. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry: Official Journal of European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 15, 151–157.
    1. Halazonetis, D. J. (2001). Acquisition of 3‐dimensional shapes from images. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 119, 556–560.
    1. Hassan, W. N. W., Yusoff, Y., & Mardi, N. A. (2017). Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3‐dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 151, 209–218.
    1. Hazeveld, A., Slater, J. J. H., & Ren, Y. (2014). Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 145, 108–115.
    1. Houston, W. (1983). The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics, 83, 382–390.
    1. Jockusch, J., & Özcan, M. (2020). Additive manufacturing of dental polymers: An overview on processes, materials and applications. Dental Materials Journal, 39, 345–354.
    1. Kasparova, M., Grafova, L., Dvorak, P., Dostalova, T., Prochazka, A., Eliasova, H., … Kakawand, S. (2013). Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomedical Engineering Online, 12, 49.
    1. Keating, A. P., Knox, J., Bibb, R., & Zhurov, A. I. (2008). A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. Journal of Orthodontics, 35, 191–201.
    1. Kim, S.‐Y., Shin, Y.‐S., Jung, H.‐D., Hwang, C.‐J., Baik, H.‐S., & Cha, J.‐Y. (2018). Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3‐dimensional printing techniques. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 153, 144–153.
    1. Mcguinness, N. J., & Stephens, C. D. (1992). Storage of orthodontic study models in hospital units in the UK. British Journal of Orthodontics, 19, 227–232.
    1. Murugesan, K., Anandapandian, P. A., Sharma, S. K., & Kumar, M. V. (2012). Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 12, 16–20.
    1. Rebong, R. E., Stewart, K. T., Utreja, A., & Ghoneima, A. A. (2018). Accuracy of three‐dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and polyjet prototype technologies: A comparative study. The Angle Orthodontist, 88, 363–369.
    1. Schirmer, U. R., & Wiltshire, W. A. (1997). Manual and computer‐aided space analysis: A comparative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 112, 676–680.
    1. Tancu, A. M. C., Pantea, M., Totan, A., Tanase, M., & Imre, M. (2019). 3D printed dental models. Materiale Plastice, 56, 51–54.
    1. Vlaskalic, V., & Boyd, R. (2001). Orthodontic treatment of a mildly crowded malocclusion using the Invisalign system. Australian Orthodontic Journal, 17, 41–46.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel