Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Biaggini F, Farronato D, Lerner H. Accuracy of 6 Desktop 3D Printers in Dentistry: A Comparative In Vitro Study.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020;
28:75-85. [PMID:
32347671 DOI:
10.1922/ejprd_2050mangano11]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
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.
Collapse