Do low-cost 3-dimensional printers produce suitable dental models?

Aligners from another perspective: Could they be a long-term environmental threat? Problems and potential remedies

Annual plastic production worldwide has reached unprecedented levels, whereas the amount of plastic being recycled remains significantly low compared with production rates. This trend is similarly reflected in the use of clear aligners, which are becoming increasingly popular. The purpose of this review, which was one of the topics discussed at the AAO 2023 Winter Conference, is to raise awareness among patients and orthodontists regarding the environmental impact of aligners, assess whether aligners pose a threat to our planet, and propose potential solutions to the existing challenges.

Effect of printing technology, layer height, and orientation on assessment of 3D-printed models

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies have become popular in orthodontics. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of printing technology, orientation, and layer height on the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models.

METHODS

The maxillary arch of a post-treatment patient was scanned and printed at different orientations (0°, 90°) and layer thicknesses (25 µm, 50 µm, 100 µm, and 175 µm) using two different printing technologies (digital light processing and stereolithography). The 120 models were digitally scanned, and their average deviation from the initial model was analyzed using 3D algorithm. A multivariable linear regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of all variables on the average deviation from the initial model for the common layer thicknesses (50/100 µm). Finally, one-way ANOVA and Tukey posthoc test was used to compare the stereolithography (SLA) 25 µm and digital light processing (DLP) 175 µm groups with the groups that showed the least average deviation in the former analysis.

RESULTS

The multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the DLP 50 µm (mean ± SD: -0.022 ± 0.012 mm) and 100 µm (mean ± SD: -0.02 ± 0.009 mm) horizontally printed models showed the least average deviation from the initial model. Finally, the DLP 175 µm horizontally printed models (mean ± SD: 0.015 ± 0.005 mm) and the SLA 25 µm horizontally (mean ± SD: 0.011 ± 0.005 mm) printed models were more accurate.

CONCLUSIONS

All the models showed dimensional accuracy within the reported clinically acceptable limits. The highest accuracy was observed with DLP printer, 175 µm layer thickness, and horizontal orientation followed by SLA printer, 25 µm layer thickness, and horizontal orientation.

Comparing the accuracy of 3 different liquid crystal display printers for dental model printing

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of 3 different liquid crystal display (LCD) printers with different cost levels.

METHODS

Three LCD 3-dimensional (3D) printers were categorized into tiers 1-3 on the basis of cost level. The printers' accuracies were assessed in terms of trueness and precision. For this research, 10 standard tessellation language (STL) reference files were used. For trueness, each STL file was printed once with each 3D printer. For precision, 1 randomly chosen STL file was printed 10 times with each 3D printer. After that, a model scanner was used to scan the models, and STL comparisons were performed using reverse engineering software. For the measurements regarding trueness and precision, the Friedman test was used.

RESULTS

There were significant differences among the 3 printers (P <0.05). The trueness and precision error were lower in models printed with a tier-1 printer than in the remaining 3D printers (P <0.05). The tier-2 and -3 printers presented very similar performance.

CONCLUSIONS

LCD 3D printers can be accurately used in orthodontics for model printing depending on the specific orthodontic use. The cost of a printer is relevant to the results only for the higher expense of the 3D printer in this study.

Physical and mechanical properties of four 3D-printed resins at two different thick layers: An in vitro comparative study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro comparative study aimed to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of four 3D-printed resins with two different thickness layers.

METHODS

Four printed resins (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, VSC; NexDent C&B MFH, MFH; Nanolab 3D, NNL; and Resilab 3D Temp, RSL) were printed with 50 µm and 100 µm layer thickness, resulting in 80 bars measuring 25 × 2×2 mm. The specimens underwent a Raman spectroscopy for degree of conversion, confocal laser scanning microscopy for surface roughness (Sa), three-point bending test for flexural strength and elastic modulus, and a Vickers hardness test (VHN). Data was tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk, two-way ANOVA, and Tukey test (α = 0.05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The layer thickness affected all performed tests, but the elastic modulus (p < 0.001). Specimens with 100 µm showed, in general, worse results outcomes than those with 50 µm (p < 0.001). However, within the limitations of this comparative in vitro study, it could be concluded that the tested resins and layer thicknesses directly influenced physical and mechanical properties.

SIGNIFICANCE

The physical and mechanical properties of three-dimensional printed restorations can be affected by the layer thickness, which can interfere with the choice of the 3D printing resin for a desired clinical outcome.

In-house three-dimensional printing within the digital orthodontic workflow

Intraoral scanning techniques, and the associated software, have revolutionized model acquisition, analysis, and virtual planning in orthodontics. Three-dimensional printing is the final aspect of this digital workflow, converting these virtual models and simulations of the tooth and occlusal movements into physical reality. This article provides an insight into how in-house three-dimensional printing is now a feasible and transformative reality for many orthodontic settings and how this empowers orthodontists to optimize their patient care.

Comparison in Terms of Accuracy between DLP and LCD Printing Technology for Dental Model Printing

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 3D printer compared to a Direct Light Processing (DLP) 3D printer for dental model printing. Methods: Two different printers in terms of 3D printing technology were used in this study. One was a DLP 3D printer and one an LCD 3D printer. The accuracy of the printers was evaluated in terms of trueness and precision. Ten STL reference files were used for this study. For trueness, each STL file was printed once with each 3D printer. For precision, one randomly chosen STL file was printed 10 times with each 3D printer. Afterward, the models were scanned with a model scanner, and reverse engineering software was used for the STL comparisons. Results: In terms of trueness, the comparison between the LCD 3D printer and DLP 3D printer was statistically significant, with a p-value = 0.004. For precision, the comparison between the LCD 3D printer and the DLP 3D printer was statistically significant, with a p-value = 0.011. Conclusions: The DLP 3D printer is more accurate in terms of dental model printing than the LCD 3D printer. However, both DLP and LCD printers can accurately be used to print dental models for the fabrication of orthodontic appliances.

Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Orthodontics for Dental Models: A Systematic Review

Background: Three-dimensional printing technology is an additive manufacturing technology that is used to reconstruct 3D objects. In the last decade, it has been rapidly involved in dentistry and in orthodontics. This article aims to review the literature and present the accuracy of different 3D printer types and any factors that could affect the 3D printing of dental models in the orthodontic field. Methods: The search strategy of this systematic review included keywords in combination with MeSH terms in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library until June 2022 and only in English. Results: Eleven articles were selected for our study. All the articles were in vitro prospective studies, and they presented a low risk of bias. The results suggested that the accuracy of a printed dental cast can be affected by the different types of 3D technologies, the dental cast’s base design, and the printing materials. The accuracy appears to not be affected by the layer height and the position of the model on the building template. Conclusions: According to this systematic review, all different types of 3D technology can produce clinically accepted results for orthodontic purposes. There is a need for more studies to clarify the accuracy and added value of 3D printing technology in orthodontics.