Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2019

01-07-2019 | Original article

Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy

Authors: Zhe-chen Zhang, Pei-lun Li, Feng-ting Chu, Gang Shen

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The accuracies of three-dimensional (3D) printed dental models using various digital light processing (DLP) and stereolithography (SLA) printers at different thicknesses were compared.

Materials and methods

Based on digital dental models (originally digitized using R700; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), physical dental models were printed using three types of DLP printers: (1) EvoDent (UnionTec, Shanghai, China) with layer thicknesses of 50 μm and 100 μm; (2) EncaDent (Encashape, WuXi, China) with layer thicknesses of 20, 30, 50 and 100 μm; (3) Vida HD (Envisioned, Dearborn, MI, USA) with layer thicknesses of 50 and 100 μm. Models with the SLA printer Form 2 (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA) were printed with layer thicknesses of 25, 50 and 100 μm. All 22 printed models were converted to digital dental models using a D2000 model scanner (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and compared three-dimensionally to the source files using Geomagic Qualify 12.0 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA).

Results

The printing accuracy of all printers was higher at 50 μm. When the layer thickness was set at 100 μm, the printing speed and printing accuracy of DLP printer were both superior to those of the SLA printer. In all groups, the EvoDent 50 μm group had the highest consistency with the source files (mean absolute deviation of 0.0233 mm in the maxilla and 0.0301 mm in the mandible). While the accuracy of Form 2 100 μm group was the lowest (mean absolute deviation of 0.0511 mm in the maxilla and 0.0570 mm in the mandible).

Conclusion

For the 3D printers studied, 50 μm was the optimum layer thickness for DLP technology, and the printing accuracy using SLA technology increased with decreasing layer thickness. The DLP technology also had higher printing accuracy at a layer thickness of 100 μm. EvoDent 50 μm had the highest and Form 2 100 μm the lowest printing accuracy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H (2017) Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(6):1178–1187CrossRefPubMed Camardella LT, de Vasconcellos Vilella O, Breuning H (2017) Accuracy of printed dental models made with 2 prototype technologies and different designs of model bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(6):1178–1187CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG et al (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114(5):589–599CrossRefPubMed Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG et al (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114(5):589–599CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Czarnota J, Hey J, Fuhrmann R (2016) Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity. J Orofac Orthop 77(1):22–30CrossRefPubMed Czarnota J, Hey J, Fuhrmann R (2016) Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity. J Orofac Orthop 77(1):22–30CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMed Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMed
5.
go back to reference Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK (2017) Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3‑dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 152(4):557–565CrossRefPubMed Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK (2017) Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3‑dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 152(4):557–565CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14(1):1–16CrossRefPubMed Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A (2011) Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 14(1):1–16CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Groth C, Kravitz ND, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR (2014) Three-dimensional printing technology. J Clin Orthod 48(8):475–485PubMed Groth C, Kravitz ND, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR (2014) Three-dimensional printing technology. J Clin Orthod 48(8):475–485PubMed
8.
go back to reference Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE (2014) Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145(2):157–164CrossRefPubMed Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE (2014) Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145(2):157–164CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2014) Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145(1):108–115CrossRefPubMed Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y (2014) Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 145(1):108–115CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P et al (2013) Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online 12(1):49–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kasparova M, Grafova L, Dvorak P et al (2013) Possibility of reconstruction of dental plaster cast from 3D digital study models. Biomed Eng Online 12(1):49–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35(3):191–201 (discussion 175)CrossRefPubMed Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov AI (2008) A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35(3):191–201 (discussion 175)CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kim J, Chun YS, Kim M (2018) Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(2):298–307CrossRefPubMed Kim J, Chun YS, Kim M (2018) Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(2):298–307CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY (2018) Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3‑dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(1):144–153CrossRefPubMed Kim SY, Shin YS, Jung HD, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY (2018) Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3‑dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(1):144–153CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M (2012) Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 12(1):16–20CrossRefPubMed Murugesan K, Anandapandian PA, Sharma SK, Vasantha Kumar M (2012) Comparative evaluation of dimension and surface detail accuracy of models produced by three different rapid prototype techniques. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 12(1):16–20CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA (2018) Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 88(3):363–369CrossRefPubMed Rebong RE, Stewart KT, Utreja A, Ghoneima AA (2018) Accuracy of three-dimensional dental resin models created by fused deposition modeling, stereolithography, and Polyjet prototype technologies: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 88(3):363–369CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL (2016) Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149(2):161–170CrossRefPubMed Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL (2016) Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149(2):161–170CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Schaefer O, Schmidt M, Goebel R, Kuepper H (2012) Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 108(3):165–172CrossRefPubMed Schaefer O, Schmidt M, Goebel R, Kuepper H (2012) Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 108(3):165–172CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Shahbazian M, Jacobs R, Wyatt J et al (2010) Accuracy and surgical feasibility of a CBCT-based stereolithographic surgical guide aiding autotransplantation of teeth: in vitro validation. J Oral Rehabil 37(11):854–859CrossRefPubMed Shahbazian M, Jacobs R, Wyatt J et al (2010) Accuracy and surgical feasibility of a CBCT-based stereolithographic surgical guide aiding autotransplantation of teeth: in vitro validation. J Oral Rehabil 37(11):854–859CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3‑dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 142(2):269–273CrossRefPubMed Sousa MV, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A (2012) Accuracy and reproducibility of 3‑dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 142(2):269–273CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Standardization IOf (1994) ISO 5725-1: 1994: accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-part 1: general principles and definitions. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland Standardization IOf (1994) ISO 5725-1: 1994: accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-part 1: general principles and definitions. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland
21.
go back to reference Hassan WWN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN, Abd Rohim A (2016) Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: digital caliper on plaster models vs 3‑dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150(5):886–895CrossRef Hassan WWN, Othman SA, Chan CS, Ahmad R, Ali SN, Abd Rohim A (2016) Assessing agreement in measurements of orthodontic study models: digital caliper on plaster models vs 3‑dimensional software on models scanned by structured-light scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150(5):886–895CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hassan WWN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA (2017) Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3‑dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(1):209–218CrossRef Hassan WWN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA (2017) Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3‑dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(1):209–218CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy
Authors
Zhe-chen Zhang
Pei-lun Li
Feng-ting Chu
Gang Shen
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Medizin
Published in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00180-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 4/2019 Go to the issue

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO