Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of conventional and 3D-printed casts using five different 3D printers.

Materials And Methods: In the control group (CG group, n = 5), five conventional impressions using light- and heavy-body polyvinyl siloxane were obtained from the master model, resulting in five stone models. In the test groups, five different scans were performed by a well-trained and experienced clinician using a TRIOS intraoral scanner. All data were exported in STL file format, processed, and sent to five 3D printers. Five casts were manufactured in each printer group: SG (CARES P20, Straumann); FG (Form 2, Formlabs); WG (Duplicator 7, Wanhao); ZG (Zenith D, Zenith); and MG (Moonray S100, Moonray). Measurements of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the casts obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions and 3D-printing methods were accomplished using a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control).

Results: The FG group showed the lowest values for trueness (indicating a value closer to real dimensions), which were similar to the SG group only (P > .05). MG, WG, and ZG groups presented higher values and were similar compared to each other. Data on precision demonstrated that all 3D-printed groups showed lower values for precision (smaller deviation) when compared to the CG.

Conclusions: The trueness depends on the chosen 3D printer. All of the tested 3D printers were more precise than cast models obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7361DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

accuracy conventional
8
conventional 3d-printed
8
3d-printed casts
8
conventional elastomeric
8
elastomeric impressions
8
group
5
casts
4
casts partial
4
partial fixed
4
fixed prostheses
4

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!