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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2050Mangano11DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

desktop printers
12
accuracy desktop
8
printed proprietary
8
proprietary materials
8
underwent dimensional
8
dimensional analysis
8
analysis optical
8
optical microscopy
8
microscopy precision
8
precision probing
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!